Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

New Clause 24

Shared ownership leases: protection for certain limited equity leases
‘In paragraph 3(2)(f) of Schedule 4A to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88) (exclusion from enfranchisement for certain shared ownership leases granted by housing associations: condition that lease provides for the tenant to acquire the landlord’s interest)—
(a) after “acquire” insert “all of”, and
(b) after “prescribed” insert “or provides for the tenant to acquire some of the landlord’s interest on terms specified in the lease and complying with such requirements as may be prescribed”.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 25—Shared ownership leases: protection for hard to replace houses.

Iain Wright: Good afternoon, Mr. Benton. In this morning’s sitting, I touched on the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives about which providers will be covered by new clause 25, and I hope that I provided reassurance that the new clause will apply to all providers in a protected area.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned concerns about the new clauses being a top-down approach, with the Secretary of State being in the front seat on any designation order. I hope that the Committee will not mind my reiterating what I said in moving new clauses 24 and 25: the local authority will be able to designate specific sites in a particular area, and the Secretary of State will then make the order.
This brings me to the fundamental theme of the line of questioning this morning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich wisely queried the definition of a rural area. He mentioned the current definition of, I believe, 3,000 inhabitants. I am in the same place as my right hon. Friend and do not want to indicate that the area should be drawn too tightly. The area should be appropriate, and I have an open mind on the point. My right hon. Friend’s point about 3,000 inhabitants is valid, and it is a good starting point. As I mentioned this morning, I am keen to look at the matter in the context of consultation and discussion with stakeholders. The question whether the rural definition can be applied to an urban setting—obviously, with regard to different concerns and considerations—is a good starting point. I hope that that reassures him.
The hon. Member for St. Ives has mentioned concerns about section 106 agreements. The new clauses will not affect any existing agreements, such as planning or nomination rights. I hope that that reassures him.
I hope that I have addressed all concerns raised by hon. Members.

Andrew George: As someone who is keen to ensure that local communities drive the process as far as possible with the Secretary of State taking a back seat in endorsing and ensuring that they operate within the purpose of the regulation, I want to be clear on how the Minister envisages a local authority drawing up or making recommendations on drawing up the boundaries of the protected area. In many rural areas, it is difficult to define whether the parish boundary should be drawn around the 3,000 population or whether the boundary should be drawn around a clear community within that parish, as many parishes have a large number of communities within their boundaries. Such issues need to be resolved. I know that many local authorities will be keen, quite rightly, to draw these protected areas as widely as possible.

Iain Wright: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the process should be driven locally, as a lot of housing developments should be. I do not want to pre-empt the consultation on criteria, but it is important that this is a locally driven process where local authorities take the leading role and then apply to the Secretary of State for the order. Local circumstances will demand what local authorities will do. I am a big fan of that approach, and I hope that reassures him. We can see this as another powerful tool to make sure that affordable housing remains affordable in perpetuity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Shared ownership leases: protection for hard to replace houses
‘After paragraph 4 of Schedule 4A to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88) (exclusion from enfranchisement for certain shared ownership leases for the elderly) insert—

“Certain leases in protected areas
4A (1) A lease which does not fall within paragraph 3 is excluded from the operation of this Part of this Act if—
(a) the lease meets the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph; and
(b) the house is in a protected area.
(2) The appropriate national authority may by order made by statutory instrument designate an area as a protected area if it considers it appropriate to do so to support the provision in the area of houses, or descriptions of houses, which are available for occupation in accordance with shared ownership arrangements.
(3) The appropriate national authority must publish the criteria for the time being in force which are to be taken into account by it in deciding whether to designate an area as a protected area.
(4) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (2) the appropriate national authority must take such steps as it considers to be reasonable to consult those likely to be affected by the order.
(5) In any proceedings the court may, if it considers that it is just and equitable to do so, treat a lease as meeting the conditions mentioned in paragraph 3(2) despite the fact that the condition mentioned in paragraph 3(2)(g) is not met.
(6) An order under this paragraph may contain such incidental, supplementary, transitory, transitional or saving provisions as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(7) In this paragraph—
“appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State; and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers; and
 “shared ownership arrangements” has the same meaning as in section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
(8) An instrument containing—
(a) an order of the Secretary of State under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;
(b) an order of the Welsh Ministers under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

Exclusion of the right to buy: demolition notices
‘Schedule (Demolition notices) (which makes provision about demolition notices) has effect.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new schedule 1—Demolition notices.
Government amendments Nos. 124, 129 and 130.

Iain Wright: New clause 26 and new schedule 1 will add a new schedule to the Housing Act 1985. They build on a measure introduced in the Housing Act 2004 to tackle exploitation of the right to buy and compulsory purchase compensation rules by some tenants. The 2004 Act added properties that are to be demolished during the next two years to the exceptions that apply to the right to buy under schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985. In practical terms, the right to buy is no longer available on properties where the landlord has followed the approved and prescribed notification process by serving a final demolition notice. The 2004 Act also gave landlords the power to serve an initial demolition notice, which suspends the right to buy—again, landlords must follow a prescribed notification process.
Initial or final demolition notices must set out the reasons and the intended date for demolition, and landlords must also publicise that information locally. Notices may be extended or revoked by the Secretary of State. The aim of allowing landlords to suspend or end the right to buy was to address a loophole in previous legislation. Before the 2004 Act, when a tenant knew that demolition was likely, they were able to buy their home under the right to buy at a discount provided by the taxpayer knowing that when it was repurchased under compulsory powers, they would be entitled to full market value plus home-loss compensation—in other words, they would make a profit, sometimes a sizeable profit, at taxpayers’ expense. That affected the financial viability of regeneration schemes, because landlords had to find the money to buy out such right-to-buy owners. The demolition notice procedure means that landlords will be able to prevent tenants from taking advantage of the time that it takes to plan and implement a regeneration scheme.
Of course, there are safeguards for tenants. Landlords must notify tenants when and why they intend to demolish. An initial demolition notice expires after five years, and another cannot be served in respect of the same property for five years, unless the Secretary of State agrees. An initial demolition notice can be extended, but, again, only if the Secretary of State agrees. If a tenant has incurred conveyancing costs before a demolition notice is served, he is entitled to compensation. A final demolition notice cannot be served unless arrangements are in place to acquire any neighbouring properties that also need to be demolished.
These provisions are also available if the landlord employs another body—for example, an arm’s length management organisation—to manage the demolition scheme on their behalf while retaining ownership of the property, but they are not available if the landlord sells or transfers the property to another landlord. The new clause and new schedule will enable initial or final demolition notices to remain in effect, if a landlord sells or transfers a property to another landlord who intends to continue with the demolition plans. However, I should make it clear to the Committee that all the safeguards for tenants that I have mentioned will remain.
The power to issue initial and final demolition notices will be available if demolition is to be carried out by another landlord to whom the social landlord has transferred the property, but only if the second landlord also intends to demolish the property. That will work as follows: the second landlord will have to revoke any demolition notice served by the first landlord, unless the second landlord serves a continuation notice confirming that they intend to continue with the demolition plans. The continuation notice must be justified on one of the same grounds as the original demolition notice, and it must be served and publicised in the same way. It may not vary the planned demolition date or the date on which the original notice will expire. The intention is to enable social landlords to manage demolition and regeneration schemes as flexibly as possible.
Amendment No. 124 is purely technical. It adds a repeal to schedule 10—the removal of “and”—and amendment No. 130 ensures that the repeal is commenced automatically. Amendment No. 129 ensures that new clause 26 and new schedule 1 are commenced automatically two months after Royal Assent, which will allow social landlords to make use of the new provision on demolition notices without delay. I hope that I have explained the intention of the amendments clearly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

Former right to buy and other flats: equity share purchases
‘After section 450C of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (loans in respect of service charges) insert—

“Other financial assistance in respect of service charges 
450D Purchase of equitable interests
(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations provide that where—
(a) a housing authority is the landlord of a flat under a long lease granted or assigned by the housing authority or another housing authority, and
(b) the tenant is liable under the terms of the lease to pay service charges in respect of repairs or improvements (whether to the flat, the building in which it is situated or any other building or land),
the landlord may, with the agreement of the tenant and in such circumstances as may be prescribed, purchase an equitable interest in the flat for the purpose of assisting the tenant to meet some or all of the service charge payments.
(2) Regulations under this section shall ensure that the purchase price is to be met by the landlord reducing or (as the case may be) cancelling the service charge payable to the landlord by the tenant to such extent as corresponds to the amount concerned.
(3) Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a) provide that the power to purchase an equitable interest does not arise in the case of particular descriptions of landlord;
(b) make provision about calculating the purchase price (including provision about any discounts and about imposing charges for the services of district valuers);
(c) provide for—
(i) the tenant to be liable for the administrative expenses of the landlord in connection with the purchase;
(ii) such expenses not to exceed such amount (if any) as may be specified in the regulations;
(iii) the purchase price to include, at the option of the purchaser, a deduction for such expenses;
(d) provide for an alteration, as a result of the purchase of the equitable interest, in the liability of the tenant for future service charges or improvement contributions.
(4) Regulations under this section may not contain provision for cases where the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers are the landlord unless the Welsh Ministers are the landlord—
(a) as the result of the exercise by them of functions under Part 3 of the Housing Associations Act 1985; or
(b) as the result of—
(i) the exercise by the former National Assembly for Wales, the Secretary of State, Housing for Wales or the Housing Corporation of functions under Part 3 of the Act of 1985; and
(ii) the transfer of the flat to the Welsh Ministers by virtue of paragraph 39 of Schedule 11 to the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(5) For the purposes of this section a long lease granted or assigned by—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, or
(b) in a case falling within subsection (4)(b), the former National Assembly for Wales, the Secretary of State, Housing for Wales or the Housing Corporation,
shall be taken to have been granted or assigned by a housing authority if (but only if) the person concerned granted or assigned it in exercise of its powers under section 90 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.
(6) This section does not affect any other power of the landlord to purchase an equitable interest in the flat for the purpose of assisting the tenant to meet some or all of the service charge payments.
(7) Regulations under this section may apply whenever the lease concerned was granted or assigned and whenever the service charge concerned became payable.
(8) Regulations under this section—
(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;
(b) may make different provision for different cases or descriptions of case including different provision for different areas;
(c) may contain such incidental, supplementary and transitional provisions as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(9) An instrument containing regulations made under this section—
(a) by the Secretary of State is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament;
(b) by the Welsh Ministers is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
(10) In this section—
“appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State; and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
“former National Assembly for Wales” means the Assembly constituted by the Government of Wales Act 1998;
“housing authority” includes—
(a) any registered provider of social housing other than a co-operative housing association;
(b) any registered social landlord other than a co-operative housing association; and
(c) any co-operative housing association which is not—
(i) a registered provider of social housing; or
(ii) a registered social landlord;
“improvement contribution” has the same meaning as in Part 5 (see section 187);
“repairs” includes works for making good a structural defect.”’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, and read the Firs t and Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

Amendments to Housing Act 1985 relating to lending institutions
‘In section 622(1) of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (minor definitions: general)—
(a) in the definition of “authorised deposit taker”, in paragraph (b), for “12(1)” substitute “12”, and
(b) in the definition of “authorised insurer”, in paragraph (b), for “12(1)” substitute “12”.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Iain Wright: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is technical. It aims to ensure that clause 264 applies to all relevant institutions. Clause 264 is designed to reduce the regulatory burden on lenders, who currently have to apply twice to different Departments for what is, in effect, the same approval, which is, as I am sure that Committee members agree, both bureaucratic and pointless. At the same time, the clause clarifies the protection afforded to right-to-buy providers.
I will spend a moment providing the background. If a tenant buys their home under the right to buy and resells it within five years, their former landlord may require them to repay some or all of the discount that they received. That obligation is secured by a charge on the property. The same obligation applies to the right to acquire from registered social landlords under the Housing Act 1996 and to voluntary sales at a discount by both local authorities and RSLs. The landlord’s charge protecting the discount payment would normally have priority. However, if the owner has a mortgage and is unable to keep up the payments, approved lending institutions are entitled to recover what they are owed ahead of the landlord’s entitlement—in other words, they have first charge on the property. That protection has been in place since the introduction of the right-to-buy scheme in 1980.
We know from recent consultation, and from comments on a slightly removed point at the oral evidence sitting last month, that lenders in the right-to-buy market regard that protection as important. Lenders with ALI status are specified in various pieces of legislation: first, in section 156 of the Housing Act 1985 with respect to right-to-buy sales, which also applies to right-to-acquire sales; secondly, in section 36 of the same Act with respect to voluntary sales by local authorities; and, finally, in section 12 of the Housing Act 1996 for voluntary sales by RSLs.
That specification also applies to sales by housing action trusts under the Housing Act 1998 and where properties have been sold under the rent-to-mortgage scheme, which is no longer available. Although some financial bodies are automatically ALIs, at present others only become ALIs on being specified as such by the Secretary of State. As I alluded to earlier, such lenders have to come to the Government twice: first, to the Financial Services Authority for authorisation to conduct lending business, and, secondly, to my Department for approval as a right-to-buy lender. The clause and the amendments will remove that unnecessary duplication.
My Department has no powers of expertise in financial regulation and, as somebody who did his tax return at the weekend, I have no financial expertise whatsoever. Approvals under sections 156 and 36 are given on the advice of others, including the Office of Fair Trading and Companies House. All lenders accorded ALI status under the current system meet the requirements of FSA authorisation and regulation.
In November 2006, the Treasury Committee recommended that responsibility for approving lending institutions for right-to-buy purposes should be transferred to the Financial Services Authority. The Government agree that the FSA is better equipped than my Department to oversee the market and therefore propose to combine right-to-buy approval with FSA authorisation. The initial assessment of suitability will be made by a fully qualified regulator, and the lenders’ activities will subsequently be monitored by that regulator, where specialist staff will be alert to potential problems.
Clause 264 removes the Secretary of State’s powers under sections 36 and 156 to specify bodies as approved lending institutions and to revoke that status. Instead, it adds the term “an authorised mortgage lender” to the relevant lists of automatically approved lending institutions. An authorised mortgage lender means one authorised for that purpose by the FSA.
The new clause alters references in section 622(1) of the Housing Act 1985 to schedule 3 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in respect of the terms “authorised deposit taker” and “authorised insurer” to ensure that the definition of an ALI is consistent with the regulatory regime established by the 2000 Act. The alteration consists of referring to paragraph 12 of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act rather than to paragraph 12(1). The FSA has advised me that the wider reference is correct. Clause 264 makes that alteration for the definition of an authorised mortgage lender, and this new clause makes the same alteration for the definitions of authorised deposit taker and authorised insurer.
I am sure, Mr. Benton, that everyone found that absolutely thrilling. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They are far too kind. I am happy to repeat all that I have just mentioned, if they so wish, but on this occasion I will not do so.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Abolition of home information packs
‘(1) Sections 148 to 170 of the Housing Act 2004 (c. 34) are hereby repealed.
(2) A person who is selling a residential property must supply the purchaser with information about the energy efficiency of the property.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the particular information which is required or authorised to be included in, or which is to be excluded from, such energy efficiency information and all other incidental matters relating thereto.’.—[Grant Shapps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Grant Shapps: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I feel that we have been here before. When we were debating HIPs last week, the Minister said that we were flogging a dead horse, but if only it were so. The legislation has been virtually pointless, and its useless implementation has been matched only by its introduction. It is worth reminding the Committee that the legislation followed a troubled path into operation across numerous pledges and manifestos. It was eventually introduced, but the home condition report is the critical point. When the home condition report—effectively a survey produced by the seller rather than the buyer of a property—was dropped, it rendered the HIP virtually useless. However, rather than recognising the difficulties that the legislation had run into, the Government pushed forward, which is the point that new clause 5 seeks to address.
Following the watered-down home condition report, there were incredible delays in the rest of the implementation, including a staggered introduction. The measure was delayed until August, which was followed by separate introductions for four-bedroomed properties, three-bedroomed properties and one and two-bedroomed properties. There were also delays in the legislation, which, even to this day, does not require, for example, leasehold documents to be included in a HIP or, for that matter, for the HIP to be obtained.
It is a requirement of the current bureaucratic legislation only that the HIP is ordered. If a house is sold before it is obtained, it does not matter, because of an exemption called first-day marketing, which means that somebody can market their home on the first day that they have the idea to put it up for sale. It seems to most onlookers that if the first-day marketing exemption were scrapped—so far, it has been extended on two occasions, most recently last week to 1 June—it would be almost impossible for the HIPs system to operate. If it were scrapped, one would need to have received a HIP to put one’s house on the market, which is not as straightforward as this Minister and the Minister for Housing like to pretend. I say that from personal knowledge, because, as I reported to the House last week, I have ordered a HIP.

Iain Wright: How is your HIP? Is it a new HIP?

Grant Shapps: Well, I am pleased to report to the Minister—I think that I told him this at the time—that the energy performance certificate was supplied within 72 hours, and I have it here. Eleven days later, however, the HIP has yet to appear. If I had purchased the HIP with the intent of selling my house and the exemption to first-day marketing had not been extended till 1 June, I would be legally forbidden from putting my house on the market, which is nonsense. The idea that the legislation is fine, but only because it has a massive hole in it—the first-day marketing exemption—makes a mockery of the entire legislation.
The issue involves more than the time taken, although I understand that if one happens to live in an area supplied by Southern Water, the delays are such that someone who ordered their HIP in October last year will still not have received it, because the search details will not have come through. That water company wrote to conveyancers in the area explaining that it could not supply the water searches for two months. Those people would be unable to sell their homes, if it were not for the first-day exemption.

Iain Wright: I am being slightly flippant, if not cheeky, and I run the risk of being ruled out of order. If the hon. Gentleman’s HIP comes tomorrow, it will have taken 12 days, so a new hip is a lot quicker under Labour than the Tories.

Grant Shapps: Thank you for your intervention, Minister, which is significant, because it demonstrates the extent to which it has been hard to get the Government to focus on the true issues. It is easy for them simply to provide a sneering look and move on with business, but the reality is that if one orders a HIP and it does not come, one would not be able to sell one’s house without the exemption. If that is not the case, I challenge the Government to get rid of the exemption straight away, but they know that that is the case and that the problem is significant.
Unfortunately, the problems do not end there. The difficulty with the HIPs legislation is that it goes against the grain of human nature. When one buys something as big as a house, one would be insane not to want to carry out one’s own searches. My neighbour put their home on the market a year ago. Due to a slowing housing market and possibly some other factors, that house has not sold. Had they been required to get a HIP, it would probably have been replaced on two occasions by now. It would be insane to trust search information so far out of date, if one were buying that house. That, in a nutshell, is the fundamental flaw in asking the seller to commission the work that is required at the time of purchase by the buyer.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has said that it would be insane to purchase something as significant as a house without obtaining all the relevant information. How many people under the old system commissioned a survey before they purchased a house—entering into probably the biggest financial transaction in their life without adequate information about what they were making an offer on?

Grant Shapps: The reality is that the information that the buyer gets depends on the buyer. I think that the right hon. Gentleman’s point is that most people do not commission a full survey on their homes, which is entirely up to them. The home condition report would never have been a full survey on the house. Home condition reports are available, but only 4 per cent. of people who have ordered a HIP to date have bothered to get a home condition report, including those paid by the Government to order HIPs—the £4 million trials. That home condition report is not of the same standard and quality as a home condition report that one would get if one were to survey one’s home, which would be carried out by an entirely separate body.
 Mr. Raynsford rose—

Grant Shapps: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to discuss whether home inspectors are the same as, for example, chartered surveyors.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will recall making a pejorative remark about the survey being commissioned by the seller, not the buyer, and implying that that somehow tainted it. The reality is that the surveys will be carried out either by approved inspectors or, in the case of the old system, by surveyors. The crucial thing about the HIPs system is that the liability will allow the purchaser of the property to seek redress, if the survey is not accurate, which is the key thing. Will he explain to the Committee how he justifies his party’s support for the old arrangements, where £1 million was lost to consumers every day of every year because of inherent inefficiency and delays?

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of the housing market is usually impeccable. The actual figure is £320 million a year, which is not quite £1 million a day, and those costs have not, of course, disappeared because of HIPs. Furthermore, he should be aware—I am sure that he is aware—that a home inspector who has studied for a period of time is not equivalent to a chartered surveyor. The people who normally carry out home inspections for the purposes of a survey are different from the people who are invited to carry out a home condition report. The right hon. Gentleman’s argument is not, in fact, with me, but with his own Front Benchers, who scrapped the requirement for a home condition report. It is not, after all, part of what is happening in the marketplace—nobody is bothering to get an HCR because they recognise it has very little value to the purchaser, who will want to purchase that survey themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a two-part question, the first part of which concerned the survey or home condition report and the second part of which concerned searches. The searches will sometimes be in place following the introduction of HIPs, which leads to the question whether any solicitor worth his salt, acting on behalf of the buyer, is going to trust information provided some months earlier. House sales take time—from the moment when a buyer and seller agree in principle to the sale, it is typically a three-month process—so most solicitors acting for a buyer are simply not going to trust that document. I am not sure why it is so difficult for the Government to see and understand the reality that people are paying the costs twice. The seller is now having to commission this information, much of which—even most of which—is repeated by the buyer, which is the problem with HIPs.
The Government repeatedly misquote the cost at £300. I invite the Minister to come clean, because we know that VAT is added. Tax is involved in the additional bureaucracy, so at the very minimum the cost is £350, and experts in the marketplace are saying that average costs are coming out nearer £400 or £500, which does not take into account running HIPs or the situation if home condition reports are included. The body of evidence makes it clear that the delay is unacceptable. The Government know that the delay is unacceptable, which is why they have had to skewer their own legislation with an exemption to allow people not to receive their HIPs, because it is sufficient to order a HIP under the first-day marketing exemption.
On my HIP, it is 11 days and counting. With the permission of the Committee, I will report back when it eventually comes through. As things stand, however, I would be unable to sell my house. New clause 5 seeks to resolve that problem. Energy performance certificates are, as we have said all along, a good idea, because they will enable people to make the comparison between their own houses and those of friends and neighbours, if they wish to share that information. It is absolutely sensible to liberate the energy performance certificate from the shell of a HIP. By cutting away the bureaucracy that surrounds EPCs and allowing them to stand on their own, we will enable them to spread faster and wider, to become more generic and to achieve our common objective of greener homes.
The new clause is an attempt to do just that. It is time that the Government admitted that they made a mistake with the legislation, which experts have ridiculed, the industry does not want, the market does not need and the new clause would scrap.

Iain Wright: Here we go again. We have debated this many times.

Angela Smith: Endlessly.

Iain Wright: Indeed. We had an Opposition day debate—my first ever, actually—on HIPs on 10 October, a statutory instrument on 18 October and a further statutory instrument last Wednesday. Frankly, I am extremely concerned that the hon. Gentleman feels the need to use valuable parliamentary time not to have Opposition day debates about the supply of new housing or to talk about how to improve its quality, but to protect vested interests—my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has referred to the cost of £1 million a day. It is simply not on. We need to move away from that and ensure that we talk about the real issues on housing policy.

Alistair Burt: Will the Minister confirm that the vested interests of whom he speaks are the same people from whom the Government sought advice, namely surveyors and others in that area of work? When the Government did not like the advice that they got, those people suddenly they became “vested interests” to be abused by the Government.

Iain Wright: Everybody, Government and Opposition alike, recognises that the current home buying and selling process needs to change. My understanding was that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield appreciated that and was doing something about it.

Grant Shapps: Undertaking a review.

Iain Wright: Exactly. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is doing that.

Nick Raynsford: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the HIPs scheme was first trialled, it commanded the support of almost all the professional bodies, which could see the clear benefit of reforming an inefficient system under which, every time a buyer commissions a survey and the sale falls through, the fee is lost? If it takes three, four or five times for the sale to go through, the surveyor does very well, because he sells the survey again and again. That was the absolute waste of money in the old system, which the Opposition continue to defend. Is not their position untenable?

Iain Wright: Absolutely. The biggest losers in all this tend to be first-time buyers, who are at a disadvantage in any case because of spending power, and we are trying to address that. Government Members recognise—I thought that Opposition Members did too—that the current house buying and selling process is confusing, expensive, stressful and opaque, and we need to do something about it.
That is why, frankly, I cannot quite understand why the Opposition have tabled a new clause that would do away with HIPs, when all the indications are that the measure is starting to work incredibly well and is doing what it was intended to do. The introduction of HIPs brought information up front in the process for the first time, and transferred costs from the buyer to the seller, making it easier for first-time buyers to get on the housing market ladder.
I thought that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield would share my aspirations and ambitions for first-time buyers, but clearly that is not the case. Now that HIPs are operational and working well in the marketplace, with all the indications showing so far that they are bringing the intended positive benefits, I cannot quite believe that the Opposition still want to pull the rug from under first-time buyers’ feet. We should all be committed to improving the home buying and selling process, not looking back.

Margaret Moran: I wholeheartedly agree that this is all about the protection of potential or existing owner-occupiers, and I happen to think that the HIPs process has brought in greater protection. If the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield is genuinely concerned about protecting those people, he should make greater efforts to look at the other end of the scale. Unscrupulous financial institutions push elderly people to sell their homes and then rent them back, and there are some dubious transactions that put those elderly people and their homes at risk.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We have all seen the adverts on television that tell people they can stay in their own homes for the remainder of their lives, but that financial penalties will be involved. The Conservatives should be considering that, but they do not seem to be.
I will give the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield the benefit of the doubt. I think that he wants energy-efficiency measures for housing, but the effect of the amendment would be to withdraw all the positive work that is going on. Last time I checked, that was being done very successfully as part of the HIP. More than 270,000 energy performance certificates have been produced to provide information to sellers and prospective buyers alike on measures to improve the energy efficiency of homes. I was about to refer to my hon. Friend regarding oral questions last week, but I am happy to give way to him.

Andrew Love: If the Opposition truly intend to press the new clause to a vote, is that not irresponsible when we have set up the system and it appears to be working?

Iain Wright: If the new clause is pressed, I shall ask members of the Committee who vote against the scheme to justify to their electors why they have voted against protection for first-time buyers and hard-working families, why they are trying to protect vested interests and why they are trying to scrap energy-efficiency measures. Given that the stock market is vulnerable and that we have the most turbulent housing market for 15 years, why do they want to derail things and to create further stress and uncertainty? That is to play politics in a devious manner, and I will have no part in it.

Grant Shapps: That is extraordinary rhetoric. Having just agreed that we are not planning to scrap EPCs and would like them furthered, the Minister slipped into a tirade as if scrapping them were our policy. I hope that he accepts that the truth is that, if HIPs were removed and EPCs did not apply only in respect of moving home, more EPCs would be issued.

Iain Wright: I had been about to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton last Tuesday at oral questions. He made an important point about assistance for people whose homes have low energy ratings. I am happy to give way again to the hon. Gentleman, because we would love to know the EPC rating of his home——or one of them; I am not sure of his status.

Grant Shapps: I can report that my EPC came in at a D, with a little room for improvement in the A to G banding. I can also report that, unlike some others, I have only one home.

Iain Wright: I am disappointed, because I wanted him to say that he had an F or G-rated home so that I could have offered him the help of the green homes service that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton at oral questions and which we announced in November. To every householder who gets an F or G-rated EPC for a home being sold or bought, the green homes service will make an offer of discounted or free help with energy efficiency. We expect some 10 million households to benefit from energy efficiency measures in the first and subsequent phases of the energy efficiency commitment. We are seeing a tremendous amount in terms of energy efficiency. Given that something like 27 per cent. of all the UK’s carbon emissions come from domestic dwellings, we need to do something about this. This is up and running now: we are curbing carbon emissions and improving energy efficiency as part of the HIPs process now. If the new clause goes through, we just scrap that, we provide nothing and almost go back to square one.
That suggests that the Conservatives saying, “Vote blue and go green” is somewhat misleading.

Grant Shapps: In fact, the new clause does include provision for the energy performance certificates to continue. Subsection (2) says:
“A person who is selling a residential property must supply the purchaser with information about the energy efficiency of the property”
and subsection (3) says that the Secretary of State can prescribe exactly what that is. We imagine that that would be an EPC.

Iain Wright: But the wording is somewhat vague, and my interpretation was quite strong, saying that it looked as though we were going back to square one.

Alistair Burt: I am struggling here. We have a lot of respect for the Minister, as he knows, but where can he find ambiguity in the words,
“A person who is selling a residential property must supply the purchaser with information about the energy efficiency of the property”?
I am a lawyer by background, but I would really struggle to get out of that one—it is as plain as it can be. I would be grateful if he reflected and said that the new clause does indeed guarantee that energy efficiency would be right up there as the key ingredient in a new certificate.

Iain Wright: No, I still maintain that it is very vague and ambiguous and does not provide that certainty.

Nick Raynsford: Subsection (3) of the new clause says:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations”—
not “shall make regulations”—
“prescribing the particular information which is required or authorised to be included in, or is to be excluded from, such energy efficiency information”.
That is absolute ambiguity and total freedom for the Secretary of State—if it was a Tory, heaven knows what they would do. It simply leaves an open door to an incoming Tory Administration to do what they like, with absolute lack of clarity.

Iain Wright: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clarification.
The dividing lines are most apparent. We are currently working to ensure that home information packs and energy performance certificates work in what is, frankly, a turbulent and uncertain housing market. We are providing that reassurance, and we will not play fast and loose with the housing market—no responsible Government would do that.
We are working now with energy companies to make the most of the EPC, linking recommendations in the EPC with grants for improvement measures, given the answer that I gave my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. This is all part of the process for the phasing in of EPCs across all sectors of buildings. Commercial buildings of more than 10,000 sq m are scheduled to require them from April; in July this will extend to those of more than 2,500 sq m; and in October to all remaining buildings. Public buildings above 1,000 sq m will need to display an energy certificate from October 2008.
All these measures are part of an agreed package that will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions. We are already considering ways of further enhancing this environmental package.

Alistair Burt: It might help the Committee to hear that the Government had at least some humility about the way in which HIPs were introduced, following the recent critical report. What was the Government’s biggest mistake that has not led the housing market or would-be purchasers to feel that HIPs are the right way forward? Why is there such concern about them, and why was the recent report so critical about the Department’s performance in putting them together?

Iain Wright: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Select Committee report, which mentions HIPs. What I took from the report was that we did not go fast enough, but that the policy of improving transparency and helping first-time buyers and other hard-working families in buying and selling houses was spot-on. It was right to phase the policy in a turbulent housing market. The potential judicial review from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors meant that we had to do something about home condition reports.
As I have throughout my debates with the hon. Gentleman, I maintain strongly that, in the turbulent housing market of the summer, with the sub-prime problems across the Atlantic, Northern Rock, rising interest rates and some uncertainty——which is important in housing markets——it was absolutely right and proper that the Government took a prudent approach and did nothing that would further undermine confidence or jeopardise the stability of the housing market. Much to the annoyance of the Opposition, the phased approach remains robust in a turbulent world and has not been compromised as a result of HIPs. The Europe Economics report showed that. We took the right, considered, reasoned, pragmatic approach; we are not going to play fast and loose with the housing market. That is what responsible Governments do. In the recession of 1991-92, when the Conservatives were in office, one in nine people lost their homes. We will never go back to that.

Robert Syms: The key point that my hon. Friend made was that EPCs relate only to homes being sold, which leaves 95 per cent. without them. The key issue for debate is what we are to do about the homes that are not on the market, many of which require improved energy efficiency if we are to meet the 2050 targets by reducing carbon emissions from homes.

Iain Wright: That is a good point. EPCs need to be widened. We had a good debate last week on sustainability certificates for new homes and clauses 242 to 256 in respect of making the provision of sustainability information mandatory as part of the HIP.
I have gone on longer than I intended. We have been round the houses on this. I implore the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield to stop flogging this dead horse and withdraw the amendment. To change my metaphor, the HIPs aeroplane has taken off and is cruising at a steady altitude, the stewardesses and stewards are bringing the drinks round, so I wish that the Opposition would stop trying to cause a crash landing.

Grant Shapps: Would not the Minister’s case be stronger if he published the results of the £4 million trial? What does he say to the comment of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich in respect of those whom the Government told they could earn up to £70,000 a year if they trained as home inspectors, as opposed to the domestic energy assessors who do EPCs? They should have been carrying out home condition reports now. What is the Minister’s message to people, who, in many cases, spent their life savings on this project?

Iain Wright: On the area trials, I have told the hon. Gentleman many times, most recently on Wednesday, that when the process is finished, I will write to him and place the report in the Library. I cannot say fairer than that. The process needs to be taken to its conclusion. That is reasonable and we have been round the houses on that.
On the second point, I know that HCRs are not mandatory and there is a case for advertising their merits, but it is not as if we have abolished them. There is still a strong case for them. I implore the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion and ensure that HIPs, which are bedding in well and not destabilising the housing market, but having the desired, positive effect, can go on and do what we intend.

Grant Shapps: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and as he rightly points out, we have debated this on numerous occasions—three separate occasions in Delegated Legislation Committees—not least because of the way the Government introduced the legislation in a hotch-potch fashion: hardly something he can blame this Front Bench for, when it was his own Government who produced these statutory instruments to debate the legislation.
I am still not hearing any answer to the question that has been hanging over the Government’s implementation of HIPs all this time, and that is, what on earth happened to the £4 million of public money that was spent on trialling this HIP legislation? What is the point of trials and pilots if it is not to test the results and publish that outcome? Without that information, we are none the wiser as to whether, in those trials, this worked or did not. The Minister has never told us what the point of those trials was if it was not to produce information that could be used as a basis to decide whether this legislation should be pushed through in full.
I do not think there is a satisfactory answer to the question for those people who trained as HIPs inspectors and spent £10,000 or £12,000 of their money, or even for those who thought there would be a lot more work available as domestic energy assessors, having spent several thousand pounds, when the work is not there. The fastest and easiest way to ensure that the market is there for them would be to run with new clause 5 and liberate the energy performance certificate so it could be used much more widely, and not just when someone buys or sells a house. I am not convinced by the Minister’s lack of arguments and cannot therefore withdraw the motion.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

Right to buy for tenants of registered providers of social housing
‘(1) A tenant of a registered provider of social housing has the right to buy the dwelling of which he is a tenant if—
(a) he is a tenant under an assured tenancy, other than an assured shorthold tenancy or a long tenancy, and
(b) he satisfies any further qualifying conditions applicable under Part V of the Housing Act 1985.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the commencement of this Act, introduce regulations in respect of the right to buy for registered providers of social housing.
(3) Regulations introduced under subsection (2) shall include provision to ensure that the proceeds of disposal are allocated to the provision of further social housing.
(4) Before making such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult with such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of registered providers of social housing.’.—[Grant Shapps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Grant Shapps: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Right to buy: power for local authorities to vary discount levels
‘(1) For section 129 of the Housing Act 1985 there shall be substituted:
“129 Discount
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, a landlord authority may determine that a person exercising the right to buy shall be entitled to a discount in the purchase price of such amount as the authority may prescribe.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a landlord authority shall by resolution prescribe the amounts of any such discount.
(3) Any discount so prescribed by the authority shall be calculated or set by reference to the period which is to be taken into account in accordance with Schedule 4 (qualifying period for right to buy and discount).
(4) A resolution in accordance with subsection (2) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of properties.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that, in such cases as may be specified in the order, the maximum discount which may be permitted by a landlord authority under subsection (2).
(6) An order under subsection (4) may make different provision with respect to different authorities or regions, or with respect to different cases or descriptions of properties.
(7) If a landlord authority decides not to exercise its power under subsection (1), nothing in this section shall require it to do so.’.

Grant Shapps: The new clauses are intended to ensure that right to buy is not compromised by the legislation. A tenant of a registered provider of social housing should have the right to buy the dwelling in which he is living.
I am sorry, I need a moment to—

George Young: As I understand it, the new clause would extend the right to buy to tenants of registered providers of social housing. As my hon. Friend knows, at the moment local authority tenants have the right to buy with all the associated discounts, and there is a preserved right to buy when the housing stock is transferred under large-scale voluntary transfer, but new tenants do not at the moment have that entitlement.
I believe what my hon. Friend was seeking to do when he tabled new clause 8 was to develop the argument that within the social housing sector there is an element of inequality, in that some have the right to buy and others do not. I was looking forward to hearing him develop the argument that the existing right should be extended to tenants of social housing.

Grant Shapps: When I say I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for intervening, I cannot exaggerate the extent. I think he is entirely right, now that I have found my notes on new clauses 8 and 22.
The right to buy has been one of the most significant elements in the last 50 years in extending social mobility to vast sections of the population. It is a policy that, while controversial, has delivered in a way that almost nothing else, no other sort of social engineering, has been able to do, in mixing communities as it has.
One thing that unites Government and Opposition Members on housing—other than the fact that we all want to end the housing crisis by building more homes—is the idea that communities would perform better, that society would work better, if communities were mixed. Rather than having single-tenure or single types of community there could be a cross-section of society living within the same or similar space. The right to buy has perhaps more than anything else enabled that, creating a situation that is now widespread throughout the country, though, as we are about to discuss, not quite as widespread as it should be.

Andrew Slaughter: If we are all indeed in favour of building more homes—and I think the hon. Gentleman should look round at his colleagues on the Back Benches next time he is in the Chamber to see if they are all nodding in approval—how can that be achieved by disposing of existing social housing without seeing like-for-like replacement?

Grant Shapps: That is an interesting intervention, because it leads on to the next point. The right to buy was tremendously successful in mixing communities but—and I think this is the point the hon. Gentleman is driving at—it did not do enough at the time to create sufficient new social housing, though the record was better than it has been recently. The reasons included a concern that local authorities would not spend the money in the best possible way, so the money was best ring-fenced and left alone.
When this Government came to power they chose not to allow the money from right to buy to be spent on developing new properties. Instead they allowed the money to be used to improve the standards of existing homes. That is welcome, but the problem with that policy is that standards have only improved by about 15 per cent. We have some research coming out soon that will back this point. It has not improved standards as much as it might have done but, worse still—

Iain Wright: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument extremely closely. On the subjects of money and research, will he inform the Committee whether his party has carried out any costings on the financial effects of the new clause?

Grant Shapps: One of the interesting things about getting this right is that allowing people to purchase the properties in which they live and then taking that money to build more housing creates a virtuous circle. The problem that one could characterise easily with the original right to buy was that the money was ring-fenced, for good reasons, because of concerns over the councils at the time. When the Government came in, the money was spent, but it was spent on refurbishment and better home standards. The new clause proposes that money can be spent in ways that would include improving and enlarging the housing stock. As we discussed earlier in the day, that has not happened sufficiently in the past few years.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that with the significant discounts available under the right to buy using money raised through that process will never replace, on a one-to-one basis, the accommodation that is lost? How does he intend to replace those properties lost under the right to buy through this new clause?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman should understand that the homes are still there. When a home is sold at or discounted from market rate, quite often, the money is available to not just replace on a one-to-one basis but on a two-to-one basis. I have been looking at a case recently where a housing association has been able to sell one of its properties and with the proceeds they built six residential properties in a housing association setting, thereby, expanding the supply of affordable housing. It is a virtuous circle. It will not always be six, but it was with this particular property. It is a virtuous circle if it means that by moving people into different types of tenancy, by moving them up and along the property ladder and by creating more housing we can help to resolve the housing crisis. It is the Government’s failure to recognise those basic facts that has led to less social housing being built for the past 10 years than for the previous 18.

Alistair Burt: Is it not the case, as he is finding out in Committee and as we have seen in the House, that the hostility to the right to buy from many Members opposite is of serious concern to the Front Bench? Given a free vote on the other side, I wonder how many Members opposite would vote to extinguish the right to buy altogether? That is what they really want to do.

Grant Shapps: We can perhaps put it to the test. My hon. Friend has a strong point, which is that there is almost a psychological dislike of the approach. If that is not the case, I will give way the hon. Lady, who was trying to intervene first, to tell us why.

Margaret Moran: I have just brought to my hon. Friend’s attention that it was this Government who introduced the right to acquire; an issue that he appears to have missed in his debate so far. He also appears to be confusing disposal by RSLs to create more housing with disposal to individuals. Given that the right to buy resulted in the loss of about one third of council housing stock, is on the other side of the coin and arguing that there needs to be an increase of about a third or more—from his arguments—of new building?

Grant Shapps: I respect the hon. Lady’s input as a previous chief executive of a housing association, but I am slightly mystified by the maths. Those houses have not disappeared. They are still there. They have people living in them. The point of expanding our housing stock is to keep the existing houses and to create more.

Andrew George: I am as intrigued as many other Members are. The hon. Gentleman refers to a “virtuous circle”, I wonder whether he should rephrase it as a “magic circle” in which rabbits are pulled out of hats and properties, which are sold at below market value, are replaced by properties that have to be built within the market. Can he illustrate his example, with calculations, of being able to sell properties at a discount and to replace them while meeting all the building and land costs?

Grant Shapps: One thing that I thought we were all agreed on is that it is desirable to prevent housing stock from seizing up, in other words, to enable people to move on and up. Right to buy is one brilliant way of achieving that goal.
The problem with housing is that, while it costs money to build a house, the real cost is of the land itself, which is one of the reasons why umpteen people have come forward to back the idea of a £60,000 home as launched by the former Deputy Prime Minister, but of course finding the land to put that home on is an entirely different matter. That is why community land trusts, for example, should play such a vital role. I am pleased with what is in the Bill about those trusts, but we can go much further. We should make it the norm rather than the exception, so that the cost of the land is stripped out of the equation as soon as it is used for housing, and the property-only part of it is transferred from one tenant to another, or even sold by one person to another.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Grant Shapps: I just want to ensure that I answer this point in full.
I cannot provide here and now the sums and maths behind the example that I was citing, but I will provide the Committee and the Minister, if they are interested, with the Circle Anglia example, where one property was sold and six were built. If he still then thinks that there is an argument against my proposal, I will be interested to hear it.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has praised community land trusts. Does he recognise that the right to buy does not apply to them, precisely because it would otherwise deplete the benefit to the community?

Grant Shapps: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of this legislation and the Committee’s refusal to accept a new clause that we tabled, there is no legal definition of a community land trust, so he has no basis on which to say that they do not do certain things. Some of the trusts—I can show him examples—are considering doing some incredibly innovative things, including allowing shares in the properties to be sold, which in effect—[Hon. Members: “Shares.”] Well, we can have a debate about whether 100 per cent. of the shares means ownership, and I readily concede that it does not include the land itself, which is the key, and answers the intervention from the hon. Member for St. Ives, but it none the less ensures mixed tenure, which is the crucial point.
Going back to the last intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the scale of the dislike on the Government Benches for anything that mentions the words “right to buy” is evident. I can only conclude that that is why there are so many hands in the air right now.

Andrew Slaughter: This is voodoo economics, and the sacrifices tend to be people in housing need. The antipathy on this side is not to the right to buy but to reducing the stock of social housing. The new clause exposes not our problem with the right to buy but the Conservatives’ problem with social housing. It is just another cheap trick to reduce the stock, which is exactly what happened in the Thatcher years, and exactly what my Conservative council is doing now.

Grant Shapps: I could not disagree more. What really betrays those in the greatest housing need is housing waiting lists, which are so much longer than they were 10 years ago, and the failure to build as much social housing as was built when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire was in the role and during the 18 years before this Government. That is what betrays people on the lowest rung of the ladder who are struggling, without a house, to get housed—the homeless people with whom I have been working in recent months. The idea that building more homes betrays people is simply poppycock, and it is unbelievable to hear it being pressed in this Committee.
The new clauses are designed to ensure that the right to buy is extended in a way that enables more housing, including affordable housing, to be built. I would have thought that that would be roundly welcomed by the Committee.

Andrew Love: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the issue last came before Parliament—he may not remember it, but I am sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will—it was defeated by his own party in the House of Lords. Perhaps he could discuss things further with his colleagues in another place before deciding to press the amendment to a vote.

Grant Shapps: We are going round in circles, on a debate that started at some point in the ’80s and is continuing today. I simply asked the Minister to look at the facts. As I have said many times—during the debate on new clause 8 and previously in Committee—the failure to build social housing is the reason why the people who need social housing do not have it. They can spin this any way that they like, but if they do not build more social houses and do not use the receipts from right to buy to help that happen, they will be forever stuck in the quagmire of failing to build sufficient social housing but wringing their hands and talking about their desire to do so. New clause 8 provides a practical application, a real way to make it happen. I would have thought that that was something the whole Committee ought to be welcoming.

Andrew George: New clause 22 has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and me. It would allow individual local authorities to take decisions about the level of discounts that they would wish to offer under right to buy. Setting the level could be operated so as to discourage or restrict purchases, but could also help where the prices are low, and the desire for the available housing was low—setting the level could be used to contribute to the regeneration of that community. That is something that could be decided by the local authority at hand.
Before going into a little more detail, although I will not detain the Committee for an undue length of time in view of the progress we have failed to make so far, I will comment on the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield’s contribution to the previous debate. Since 1980 more than 1.7 million properties have been sold under right to buy, yet fewer than half of these have been replaced through social house building. Not even all those will have been funded by the receipts of those property sales—during the Conservative tenure of 18 years, the ability of local authorities to use such receipts was somewhat restricted as well. We also have to consider whether the Conservative legacy was acceptable.
Certainly the calculations of the income generated from the receipt of sales under right to buy have never been sufficient. I am not aware of any local authorities that are champing-at-the-bit keen to sell their properties because, as a result of selling one property, they are able to accrue to themselves or to registered social landlords more than one property—nay, six in one case. The magic circle—rather than a virtuous circle—painted by the hon. Gentleman has to be taken with a severe pinch of salt.
The purpose of new clause 22, as I said, is to allow individual local authorities to take decisions about the level of discount available. They would have the freedom to revise the level of discount available on a regular basis, to take into account the changes in the conditions of housing needs and the levels of demand for right to buy in their areas. That freedom would allow them to discharge more effectively the strategic place-shaped function envisaged in the local government White Paper of 2006 and in the Lyons report. A number of recent changes to the policy and legislative landscape have aimed to strengthen the role of local authorities in strategic planning. The local authorities are intended as place-shapers. Sir Michael Lyons stressed in his final report the importance of allowing local communities flexibility and choice, so that they can respond to local conditions. One of the report’s main conclusions was that greater flexibility was required,
“both over finances and to enable local government to manage local services in response to local needs.”
The local government White Paper in 2006 and its subsequent updates also stated that local flexibility and “devolving more power locally” are key Government priorities for reforming local government.
I would request that the Minister looks again at the affordability index that was used to decide which local authority areas should have restricted discounts applied to those areas. Certainly, we need an update of that index and a provision to allow local authorities to apply the index appropriately, and to guide them in their decisions when apportioning the level of discount that they intend to apply.

George Young: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. I wonder whether the new clause might have a perverse consequence. If a local authority could reduce the discount or eliminate it, the first thing that local authority tenants would do—if they could—if they felt that their local authority was about to use that power, would be to buy their home under the existing regime. Perversely, the new clause could accelerate the loss of social housing.

Andrew George: The manner and speed at which decisions are taken, the implementation and management of those decisions and the forecasting of the decisions that are likely to be taken by a local authority are matters that need to be considered when rolling out such a proposal. In the same way, the Government no doubt took those issues into account when they allocated the 41 local authorities for which there would be a restricted discount of a maximum of £16,00 on each property. Those matters would then exercise the local authorities in the manner in which they applied the discounts. I do not seek to diminish the fact that, just as businesses in the City making decisions over investment try to predict the decisions of the Bank of England over the setting of interest rates, the same would apply to local authorities, so the right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I would hope that the implementation of this reasonable measure would allow devolved decision-making to reflect the circumstances within each of the local authority areas. That is something that can be overcome and taken into account during implementation.
The Housing Act 2004 introduced some welcome reforms to the right to buy, extending the qualifying and discount repayment period, during which a proportion of the discount must be repaid if the property is sold on. Those reforms have helped to limit the exploitation of the right to buy by property companies and others. Similarly, the restrictions on the right to buy under the original Act, which was amended later in the 1980s, limited the right to buy in certain circumstances, in 26 rural areas. That provides an example that differential geographical decisions can be made in local circumstances. For the measures that I have described—the 41 local authority areas where discounts are varied and the rural restrictions on right to buy re-sales—those decisions are taken by the Secretary of State. With the new clause, however, we are asking the Government to allow local authorities to have that discretion themselves and I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board. Given his welcome for the idea that decisions should be taken at a more local level in other aspects of the Bill, and that the Secretary of State should not be so overbearing, I hope that he will take that on board when conveying these powers to local authorities.

Iain Wright: I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate as I think have other hon. Members.
May I say at the start that the Government—and me personally—support the right to buy? It has helped thousands of families, including my own, to realise the aspiration of owning their homes and has helped to create stable, mixed-tenure communities. I want to mention an important point about the right-to-buy discounts. I get letters about this issue on both sides of the argument. Some people think that right-to-buy discounts are already too high and should be reduced whereas others argue that maximum discounts should be raised to reflect rising property prices. We believe that the present limits strike a reasonable balance between helping people into home ownership and helping those who need social housing. We therefore have no plans to change the current right-to-buy discounts.
The Government want to widen access to home ownership as much as possible and help more people, including social tenants, to build up assets. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, I do not think that the proposals before us are the most sensible way of achieving that.
Seventy per cent. of tenants of registered social landlords already have a right to purchase their home under the right-to-buy and right-to-acquire schemes. The Government introduced the pilot social homebuy scheme to help tenants of RSLs who do not have a right to buy or right to acquire, or who cannot afford it, to buy a share in their rented home. Under social homebuy, tenants may buy from 25 per cent. to 100 per cent. of their home at a discount and landlords can keep the sales proceeds for reinvestment in social and affordable housing.

Grant Shapps: I wonder if the Minister can tell us how many homes have been sold under the much-trumpeted social homebuy scheme?

Iain Wright: I do not have that information to hand, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing announced on 12 December that social homebuy will continue and that we are encouraging landlords to improve affordability and develop an option under which maintenance costs are shared. Our approach is to work with landlords to develop a scheme that is more affordable for tenants and more viable for landlords.
I intervened on the hon. Gentleman to ask about costing. That is the main theme of my opposition to the new clause. Compelling registered providers of social housing to sell their stock at a discount would be very costly. It would require full consultation. Registered providers faced with large-scale sales might find it more and more difficult to borrow to fund new provision and their repair and maintenance programmes. If the taxpayer, through the Exchequer, was to fund the discount, as is the case for the right-to-acquire scheme for tenants of registered social landlords, we estimate that extending the right to buy to those tenants who currently do not have such a right would cost £268 million a year. I suggest to the Committee that that would have a significant impact on the resources available to provide investment in new social housing.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive case. He said at the outset that he has enjoyed the debate. I enjoyed the debate, but was puzzled by the absence of contributions from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. Had they given a speech, rather than the helpful and kindly intervention that the right hon. Gentleman made to help his Front Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, they would have had to explain why the Conservative Government in which they both served, accepted the very clear evidence that it was inappropriate to require charities and other voluntary organisations to sell compulsorily, as they are now proposing. That would in effect be expropriating the assets of charities. That was the fundamental reason why the other place rejected the proposition when it was put forward.

Iain Wright: As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an amazing, fantastic and accurate point. All I would say in response is that, during the debate we all saw the looks on the faces of Opposition Members when the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield was on his feet. I will leave it at that.
The amendment is uncosted, which is irresponsible on the part of Her Majesty’s Opposition. The large sum of £268 million a year could be going towards our ambition for 45,000 new social homes per year, as part of our overall target of 3 million homes by 2020. In that respect, I would ask the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield to withdraw his amendment.
New clause 22 almost flows in the opposite direction to new clause 8. As the hon. Member for St. Ives quite rightly and eloquently said, it would free local housing authorities to set whatever levels of right-to-buy discount they choose, including no discount at all, subject to a limit specified by the Secretary of State, if she chose to do so.
As the new clause was explained by the hon. Gentleman, I think that that is undesirable. Tailoring right-to-buy discount would not necessarily be an effective way of addressing local housing matters. I agree with the point that local housing considerations are best decided locally. For example, the landlord could decide to lower the maximum discount to curb right-to-buy sales locally; but, on learning what was intended, tenants might decide to apply for the right to buy before it happened, in order to beat the ticking clock, as pointed out by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. The right hon. Gentleman referred to it as a “perverse incentive”.
In a former life, I worked for an accountancy firm where we used to audit ourselves. We audited large-scale voluntary transfers and we would see people become somewhat nervous and apprehensive when changes were introduced. One could chart the spike of right-to-buy applications just before transfer of stock from a local authority took place. Naturally, people felt apprehensive and thought that something might alter in their security of tenure. That would be the unintended consequence of the amendment.

Andrew George: The Minister’s logic is that the currently available discount would be available for all time, and that no decision could be taken, whether at Government or local level, because he fears a perverse incentive and outcome. That logic presupposes that the tenants would know whether the decision would increase or decrease the discount. It could create a perverse incentive that would be acting against the tenants’ best interests if the local authority’s decision was to increase the discount.

Iain Wright: But, the requirement for consultation would establish the apprehension that would still lead to a rise in the number of right-to-buy applications, which would reduce the discount still further. There would be unintended consequences to the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of no discount, which would be a somewhat radical departure from the principal of the right-to-buy scheme. For most tenants, I would suggest that, in practical terms, it would mean ending any availability of right to buy whatsoever. I cannot support such an extreme measure.
The hon. Gentleman said that the new clause would enable the Secretary of State to specify the maximum discount that a local housing authority may set in its area. I suggest, with gentle joshing, that that is at odds with his approach in an earlier debate on new clauses 24 and 25. I would also suggest to him that it is unnecessary, as the Secretary of State already has the power under section 131(2) of the Housing Act 1985, which states that:
“The discount shall not in any case reduce the price by more than such sum as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.”
The power is already there.
I know that some who are involved in housing would welcome the kind of local flexibility that we have discussed during consideration of the new clause and earlier clauses. However, there is potential for confusion, perverse incentives, and repercussions, and therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Andrew George: Of course the new clause was intended as a probing amendment and I intend to withdraw it in a second. I wish first to make two points to the Minister.
One is on the joshing point that he made. Of course there was a reference to the powers of the Secretary of State. That was because, following the debate on new clauses 24 and 25, I would not want to denude the Secretary of State or the Minister of all their powers. That would be wrong. Hence the reference to giving the Secretary of State some role.
Secondly, the most substantial point that the Minister, backed rather oddly by a former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, can make is that the new clause would create a perverse incentive for tenants and work against the objects of what a local authority might be seeking to achieve by varying the discount level. However, it would discourage any decision at any level, be it creating a perverse incentive at the local authority level, or across the country if a Secretary of State were to decide or consider deciding to vary the discount level.
I do not accept that argument. I hoped that the Government would consider the provision. After all, they have accepted variations of discount in some circumstances—available in 41 areas, mainly in the south-east. The principle therefore is not one that the Government find unacceptable. I hope that in such circumstances the Minister will consider that the right to buy, the impact that it has and the level at which it is set, has varying impacts in different parts of the country. He should therefore allow local authorities to set and vary the rate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Joe Benton: Order. There is no need to withdraw the new clause as it is being discussed along with new clause 8.

Grant Shapps: It has been an interesting debate and I am sure that most members of the Committee would agree. I remain grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire for giving me the opportunity to make up for the failure of my filing system and get onto the new clause. It revealed some interesting thoughts, attitudes and almost inbuilt reactions to just the three words, “right to buy”.
One of the most interesting aspects is the simple maths involved. The Minister seems to take the approach that simply says: when one sells a house and builds another only one additional house has been created. One has to recognise that somebody is living in the original house and therefore the housing stock has been expanded. We may have gone a long way to understand why there has been such difficulty in building the required number of homes in the past 10 years and why as a nation we will probably end up building fewer homes this year than last year. That basic misunderstanding of mathematics has led to confusion within the Government about the best way to go about building more homes. All the facts and statistics are on our side. We built more homes, in particular more social homes. New clause 8 proposed a way of building even more. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and give it further consideration on Report.
If nothing else, the debate was worth having because it gave the Minister the opportunity to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire—to paraphrase—“I thank you and Mrs. Thatcher for the right to buy”, which he revealed has helped his family, as well as millions of others.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Design of new dwellings
‘The Secretary of State shall amend Part M of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2000 (access to and use of buildings) to ensure that all new dwellings of whatever type or tenure meet enhanced minimum standards in relation to—
(a) the provision of a reasonable means of access into and around the dwelling and ease of use, without modification, by the widest possible range of individuals (including disabled persons);
(b) future ease of adaptation to provide full access into and around the dwelling and ease of use for wheelchair users; and
(c) the capacity of the dwelling to meet the changing needs of any occupiers over their lifetime;
within 6 months of the coming into force of this Act.’.—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 11, in clause 173, page 68, line 5, after ‘extent’, insert ‘, accessibility’.
Amendment No. 9, in clause 173, page 68, line 24, at end insert—
‘(m) facilitating timely provision of adaptations to tenants’ homes for a disabled occupant (whether by means of assistance provided under Part 1 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (c. 53) or otherwise).’.

George Young: We now sail into slightly calmer waters with new clause 9, which has a breadth of political support denied to the last two new clauses which we debated. This new clause deals with the building regulations, and these regulations apply to all housing, not just social housing. The new clause seeks to bring forward the amendments to part M. The conditions I would like to see as part of these amendments are set out in the new clause, and the new clause suggests that these be implemented within six months of Royal Assent.
The new clause touches on some of the arguments adduced in our debate a fortnight ago on the first set of amendments. This can be found in column 154 of the Official Report and focused on the remit of the HCA to promote accessibility of new housing. In that debate, in column 155, I referred to part M of the building regulations, and in column 156 I asked the Minister whether he could shed some light on where we were heading with those.
The Minister replied in column 159. It was a helpful reply, and I welcome what he said. With respect, however, he sidestepped the direct question about the future of the building regulations. His reply was about lifetime home standards, and he said that these
“set out criteria that make homes more adaptable to people’s changing circumstances”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 159.]
and
“create homes that are specifically built”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 159.]
He went on to say:
“Our intention is for all homes funded by the public sector to be developed as lifetime homes by 2011.”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 159.]
That is very different from what is in the new clause, which has a much earlier start date without the restriction to public sector homes. The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for St. Ives also intervened in our debate on January 10. I do not want to rehearse in any detail the arguments I put forward then, but I will summarise the present situation.
The current regulations are, in part, approved document M, which deals with access to an use of buildings. This contains a requirement that for new private dwellings, reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to and use the building. That is to say there is a requirement to make sure all new private dwellings can be visited by the disabled and other such individuals. There was an exchange as to whether the regulations went further than covering people who visit. I looked at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation website, and in particular a page called “The impact of Part M on the design of new housing”, which summarised the conclusions and found that:
“Part M is half-hearted and does not address the real housing needs of disabled people, namely for liveable rather than visitable housing.”
I welcome the amendments introduced by the right hon. Gentleman; they are of real benefit to those who visit houses, but they do not go quite as far as those in the new clause, which is why I have tabled it: in order to press the Minister as to the Government’s intentions. The revisions that were introduced represent a step forward, and I apologise if I did not pay a fulsome tribute to the right hon. Gentleman in the earlier debate. They make accommodation more accessible to those with disabilities, to young mothers with buggies, to teenagers with broken legs, to visiting grandparents, and to many others. It is good to have those facilities in-built when the house is being constructed. These new controls, however, do not go the go the whole way towards introducing the full lifetime home standards, and further work is now needed to introduce and implement the remaining elements.
In 2003, Lord Rooker was asked a question in the other place about the review of part M. On October 15 2003, he said:
“My Lords, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently commissioned research to evaluate the impact of the changes to Part M of the building regulations, which concerns the accessibility of all new homes and was introduced in 1999. The work is expected to begin before Christmas and to report in about two years' time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2003; Vol. 563, c. 934.]
Over four years have elapsed since that statement. We now need to know what has happened to that report and what action the Government proposes to take in order to build on the existing regulations.
Looking at a reply given by a Minister in another place in December, it seems to me that the Government are not planning to take forward the building regulations but are relying on a non-regulatory code. I quote Baroness Royall of Blaisdon:
“On the lifetime home standard and housing for people with disability, the Government have decided to take forward lifetime homes, at least in the first instance, through a code for sustainable homes. The Government consider the code to be extremely important. Its aim is to give developers a non-regulatory means of improving the sustainability of buildings and to become the single national standard”.
She went on to say:
“Nor does putting it in the code rule out making lifetime homes part of the regulatory base in the long run. This is an issue which government will continue to keep under close review.”
It would be helpful therefore if the Government defined more clearly whether they see the building regulations as the agency for driving forward progress or whether they are going rely on non-regulatory means. If they do have plans for further amendment to the building regulations, what exactly is the time scale for them against the background of the answer of four years ago I quoted from Lord Rooker?

Andrew George: I wish to add two points to embellish the excellent case made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. First, before I was elected to this House, I sought in a previous life as a professional officer to encourage registered social landlords and local authorities to develop in new schemes the capacity to adapt properties for those who may have a disability or who for other reasons need to be able to adapt that property in future. I have welcomed the lifetime homes standard. The new clause 9 brings this forward and seeks to implement it as quickly as possible. I would hope that, given the spirit in which the Government has moved this agenda on quite significantly in the last ten years, they will accept this amendment and the spirit in which this amendment is brought forward. I hope they can find a way of speeding up the capacity to achieve this.
My second point covers the role of disabled facilities grants, as referred to by implication in amendment No. 9, which is grouped with new clause 9. I strongly endorse the speedy introduction of these measures. The problem is—I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members here have the same experience as I do in my constituency—the limitations of the disabled facilities grants. The Government are seeking quite rightly and with all-party support to do what they can to encourage greater independent living for disabled people, for elderly people and for others who may in the past have been living in institutional care. We are encouraging people to live in their own homes and to enable them with adaptation to achieve that. The disabled facilities grants are part of the means by which this can be achieved. The waiting list to achieve those adaptations is so great, however, that often that is extremely difficult and for those people waiting for those adaptations it means that they are in quasi-institutional care or certainly imprisoned in their own houses and unable to use all the facilities of their home, including washing facilities.
If the amendment were accepted, it would quite rightly put pressure on the Government to ensure that the resources are in place to deliver disabled facilities grants and to enable people to, quite rightly, live independently in their own property. I hope that the Minister will take on board the spirit in which the amendments have been tabled and, even if he is unable to accept them as drafted, I hope he can find a way for the Government to introduce some redrafts to achieve the same objective.

Nick Raynsford: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but there are a number of issues that should be mentioned. I broadly support the objectives of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire in wanting to highlight the importance of improving the standard of new housing, especially the provision of access for disabled people. However, I fear that his new clause is defective in a number of ways.
The first provision—paragraph (a)—is actually a statement of the existing requirement in part M of the building regulations, so the new clause would not take us beyond that. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman cited part M in his comments. He also quoted the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as being rather defamatory about part M. In fact, it warmly welcomed part M when it was introduced in 1999, and its then chief executive, Lord Best, played a key role in brokering an agreement between the disability lobby and the house builders—indeed, he paved the way for it. There had previously been some resistance on the part of the house building industry towards the introduction of part M, and I remember the Joseph Rowntree Foundation hosting an event in which I participated on the day that the new part M came into force. At the time, I had been heavily criticised by some of elements of the media for doing away with the great British doorstep, and I well recall the full support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others, including the disability lobby, for the introduction of part M in 1999. As I said in a previous debate, part M had not been introduced by the previous Conservative Government, despite strong pressure from the disability lobby.
While I do not think that paragraph (a) is needed, paragraph (b) is crucial because it refers to lifetime homes. However, as the Minister has already made clear, the Government are committed to the implementation of lifetime homes by 2011. The rushed implementation implicit in the new clause tabled by the right hon. Gentleman is not appropriate. As a former Minister, he will recall that an important but lengthy consultation process is required to consider changes to building regulations. That is necessary for a variety of reasons: to ensure that all relevant parties are consulted; to consider all relevant technical issues; and to ensure that the interface among proposed changes in one area of building regulations and other areas are fully tested. Changes that might seem desirable in one respect can have unfortunate consequences in others.

George Young: It is a pleasure to listen to a ministerial reply being delivered from the Back Benches. The lifetime homes standards apply only to public sector homes—that was the commitment. What length of time does the right hon. Gentleman think is appropriate to make progress along the lines of paragraph (b), given the need to consult with the house building industry?

Nick Raynsford: I was about to describe the process and to say that one of the conclusions that the Building Regulations Advisory Committee has come to as a result of several recent changes is the importance of better co-ordination of changes. Indeed, Local Authority Building Control has pressed the Government not to introduce one-off changes to individual regulations because that can cause a difficulty with implementation. The right hon. Gentleman might recall that when the latest change to part L was introduced, it was done in a way that caused anxiety in the industry because people were not prepared and did not have time to get the necessary arrangements in place for full implementation.
Six months after the Act comes into force is a completely unrealistic timetable in which to amend part M, particularly in a climate where there is concern to achieve better co-ordination among the different parts of the building regulations and to adopt a proper considered approach towards the cumulative effects of changes on buildings.
Paragraph (c) of the new clause seems completely unfeasible. Anticipating the changing needs of any occupiers of a building over their lifetime would require the wisdom of Solomon. The right hon. Gentleman might have that, but when he and I were born, we had no idea of the scope that there is now for electronic contributions to so many aspects of our lives. I am sure that other technological changes that no one can possibly anticipate now will be made in an equivalent period, but that is optimistic crystal ball gazing.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue. It is important for us to continue looking at ways in which we can improve standards coherently, sensibly and in a way that the industry can implement. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some assurances about the Government’s commitment to achieve that, while probably rejecting the amendments and new clause.

Alistair Burt: I rise to discuss the sentiment behind the new clause that was so ably moved by my right hon. Friend. I well remember the pressures described by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and the approaches of the disability lobby on this issue when I was Minister for Disabled People. Their arguments reminded people that this is about not only disability, but ageing. There is the cost of adaptations to homes and the issues raised when people are happily living somewhere with the feeling that they might have to leave and go somewhere else. I found the argument that we should consider how society gets older right at the beginning of the process of housing, and think about these things in a rather different way, very persuasive. I have always described involvement disability work as a benevolent ratchet—it always moves forward. Sometimes it does not go quite as quickly as the lobby would like, but with a succession of Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, it has moved in the right direction.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich was also right to indicate that the general reaction of those asked to make changes, whether that is in transport, government or private development, is usually to say no first and to stall. We then see adaptations coming through as we are doing with transport and the like. It might not be possible for the Minister to accept the new clause, but the arguments behind it are still valid. If we do not make changes quite like this, what will we do? Will we continue to have a process whereby due to the pressure of building new houses, we build them with smaller spaces for people? We are living in smaller units than we used to and the problem could get worse.
To what extent are the Government prepared to give guidance and, even if they cannot accept such a new clause, to say that there will be some changes and that they will be thinking about this sensibly for the future? This is about not future costs, but saving future costs in the long run. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire presented his case extremely well and the sentiment of the Committee is clear. I will be interested by how the Minister responds and what reassurances he can give us for the future.

Iain Wright: This has been a high-quality debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has already made many of my points. I cannot really stand up, following the consideration of the last new clause, without commenting on what the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield said in praise of Mrs. Thatcher. One of the reasons why I am in the Labour party is because of Mrs. Thatcher, who decimated the north-east and my constituency. Forgive me for that little rant, Mr. Benton, because we have had a well-meaning and high-quality debate.
I point out to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that we made significant improvements in access to, and the use of, buildings in the last update of part M of the building regulations in 2004. Further measures to improve access and use have been developed through the lifetime homes standards, as we have mentioned on several occasions during our consideration of the Bill, not least today. As I said, lifetime homes standards are now included in the code for sustainable homes.
In our response to the public consultation on the code for sustainable homes, we clearly indicated our intended direction of travel and our speed, with lifetime homes standards required at code level 6 from 2008, code level 4 from 2010 and code level 3 from 2013. Moreover, from 2011, all new publicly funded housing will be built to include lifetime homes standards, and many schemes now starting on site will include those standards once they are completed.
I visited a development in Newcastle upon Tyne—another area that was decimated by Mrs. Thatcher—where houses with lifetime homes standards were being built. Their density and size and the amount of space were incredibly impressive. We continue to work with stakeholders in the private sector to encourage further uptake of the lifetime homes standards.
We said that by 2012 we would review the uptake of LHS in all sectors to assess whether legislation was required to meet our long-term targets, which brings me on to the subject of possible regulation. In March 2004, a commitment was made to review the feasibility of including LHS in part M of the building regulations. That was done, and one of the findings of the review was that the standards were not in a form suitable to support legislation and that they required updating and refining.
Since then, we have supported steps to address the issues. For example, on 11 January, the British Standards Institution published a draft for development on accessible homes, which will provide the basis for the review and development of the existing lifetime homes standards. We will ask the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to form a working party to contribute to the consultation on the draft for development, and it is envisaged that the working group will include a number of main BRAC members and seconded experts. We are committed to working with stakeholders to develop the most economic and robust way of delivering the benefits of lifetime homes standards.
This is a vital process, as it is widely recognised that the existing standards are not applicable to all housing types and that the technical guidance needs to be clarified and updated. Legislating on the basis of the current lifetime homes standards would be imprudent as they might lead to a significant number of appeals and disputes if they were translated into regulatory form.
It is important that we take this opportunity to ensure that the guidelines on lifetime homes standards are robust and will succeed in delivering the accessible and adaptable housing that is needed. That will also ensure that the lifetime homes standards are fit for regulation, if that proves necessary in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly mentioned the process for amending building regulations and he made his point very well. The process is lengthy and detailed, and it requires the formal amendment of the building regulations—the secondary legislation made under the powers in section 1 of the Building Act 1984.
As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire is aware, to amend the regulations, we are obliged by law to follow a procedure that is likely to involve a review of existing legislation, a public consultation on proposed changes following the review, and the notification of draft and final amended guidance to the European Commission, in addition to the time required for the drafting and review of a highly technical subject. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree that the proposed time scale of six months is unrealistic.
We must also ensure that the industry has sufficient time to adapt its practices and designs to incorporate lifetime homes standards. That is particularly true for smaller developers and house builders that will be working to the standards for the first time and might not have the resources of larger organisations. As the draft standards mature during 2008 and 2009, builders will have the opportunity to visit early adopting schemes and to review emerging housing typologies. That will help to provide the entire house building industry with the necessary confidence and understanding to adopt and implement lifetime homes standards.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, as a result of the considerations, I think that regulation is not the best way to proceed. Amendment No. 11 would add the word “accessibility” to clause 173(1)(a) so that it would read:
“The regulator may set standards for registered providers as to—
(a) the nature, extent,”
accessibility
“and quality of the social housing to be provided by them”.
I have no doubt that we will discuss clause 173 in more detail in the future. I understand that a large number of amendments have been tabled on that important part of the Bill. The aim of clause 173(1) is to specify in what general activities the regulator may set standards, namely the nature and extent of social housing, and the nature, extent and quality of accommodation facilities and services provided in connection with social housing. That means that only issues connected with social housing are covered.
Standards for the design of new homes and the wider built infrastructure will not be a matter for the regulator, although they might be of concern to the Homes and Communities Agency. There are activities to do with accessibility of social housing where it would be appropriate for the regulator to set standards. I suggest to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that those are covered by clause 173(1)(b), which permits
“the nature, extent and quality of accommodation, facilities or services provided by them in connection with social housing.”
Therefore, a specific mention of accessibility would be an unnecessary level of detail in subsection (1).
New clause 9 would also amend clause 173, and would add to the list of areas where standards may by issued. It would add a new paragraph (m), which says that standards may cover the timely facilitation of adaptations to tenants’ homes for the disabled. We are back to the list principle that we have mentioned many times. The measure is not necessary because clause 173(1)(b) already allows the regulator to set standards in the area—for social housing only—and it can do so when it is appropriate and necessary. The new clause would not compel the regulator to set standards. It is the regulator’s decision what to set standards on, through consultation with stakeholders on what those should be.
If there is no Housing Corporation regulation, choosing to regulate in the future would be an additional burden on housing associations. We are committed to reducing the burdens on the sector, and it is a clear objective of the regulator to regulate with minimal interference. Housing associations currently meet the cost of small adaptations from their own resources, but larger ones require outside funding.
We strongly encourage the adaptation of suitable homes. Our disabled facilities grant, which we may discuss in subsequent new clauses, enables people to continue to live independently in their own homes, by funding adaptations to meet their needs. It is highly successful, with Government funding increasing from £57 million in 1997 to £126 million last year. In 2008-09, funding will increase by 20 per cent., bringing the disabled facilities grant budget to £146 million per year.
Despite the success of the disabled facilities grant, we accept that the programme is still in need of improvement. That is why we launched a cross-departmental review of the programme, and a package of changes to improve it will be announced shortly. I believe that the Housing Corporation currently expects associations to provide tenants with adaptations where required, and it is expected to make provision for this in its business plans. If so, that might be an issue for the Homes and Communities Agency to address in grant provisions.
I hope that I have addressed that thoroughly enough for the Committee, and on that basis I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

George Young: It would be unduly aggressive of me to do what the hon. Gentleman implied and press the matter to a vote. I want to make a number of short points, however.
I am sure that the Blair Government was able to do things that the Major Government did not do in this sector. I need to reassure people that the Cameron Government will do things that the Brown Government was not able to do. If one looks at the development of improved facilities for disabled people, there is a continuum through all parties beginning, in my political lifetime, with Alf Morris, which has gone right through and has been apolitical. My anxiety is that there should not be a loss of momentum.
The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned that in 1999 he introduced the regulations that we have referred to. That is what he achieved between 1997 and 1999. My concern is that the trail should not now go cold. Here we are in 2008, and the building regulations do not seem to have moved forward enormously. A working party is going to consult, but the Minister was not able to give specific dates on the building regulations. I welcome what he said about sustainable homes and lifetime homes standards, but I think that that is all non-statutory. It is voluntary and does not have the teeth that the building regulations will have. If we do not achieve the progress that we want, it may be necessary to revive the building regulations as the engine of progress.
It has been a useful debate. The Minister has shed some light on the matter and his heart is clearly in the right place, but it is an area that we may have to keep an eye on to maintain the momentum. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Disability equality duty
‘(1) The Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2966/2005) are amended as follows.
(2) In Regulation 2(3)(d)(iii) for “Part I or V of Schedule 1” substitute “Part I, V or VI of Schedule 1”.
(3) After Regulation 2(6)(d) insert—
“(e) in the case of a public authority listed in Part VI of Schedule 1, 1st December 2009”.
(4) After Part V of Schedule 1 insert the following new Part—

“Part VI

Authorities added by Housing and Regeneration Act 2008
The Homes and Communities Agency
The Regulator of Social Housing.”.’.—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in clause 173, page 68, line 6, at end insert—
‘(c) the nature and extent of activities they should undertake in pursuance of their duties under section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c.50).’.

George Young: I hope that this will be a brief debate. The purpose of the new clause is to extend the duty to produce a disability equality scheme for the two new bodies that are set up by the Bill—the HCA and the regulator of social housing. The Committee will know that disability discrimination legislation came into force in December 2006. It places a duty on certain public authorities to produce a disability equality scheme. The HCA’s predecessor, English Partnerships, has been under specific duties to promote disability equality. The Minister implied that the Government were going to do what the new clause does when he said:
“We will table consequential amendments in due course to amend schedule 1A to the Race Relations Act 1976, to include the regulator and the HCA. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995...as amended by the Equality Act 2006, now contain a general duty that applies to all public authorities.”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2008; c. 184.]
Will the Minister clarify when we are going to see those consequential amendments? Will he confirm that those two bodies will have specific duties to promote disability equality, as well as the general duty? Will the HCA be added to the list of bodies subject the specific duties, and will he set out a timetable?

Iain Wright: The Minister for Housing has written to the Committee explaining our intentions regarding the equalities duties in primary legislation, following a degree of probing in the oral evidence sessions in December. She was clear that, in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, there is no need for further legislative amendment as the Act contains a general duty that applies to all public authorities.
I would like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members that we also intend to amend the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005 by order during the transition period from the existing bodies to the Homes and Communities Agency—that is the key point on timetabling. That will ensure that the Homes and Communities Agency is subject to the specific duty. Primary legislation is not necessary to do that. We also intend to amend the regulations pertaining to sexual discrimination, so that the agency is subject to the same specific duties under those regulations. I imagine that the same timetable will apply. I hope that he will see that we intend to do very much as he wishes and more in the future.
There may be some confusion regarding amendment No. 10. It would certainly not achieve its outlined purpose as currently worded. Clause 173(1) outlines the general area in which the regulator can set standards, which is basically on social housing and services connected to social housing. The amendment would not impose a statutory duty. It would not require the regulator to do anything. It is also far too detailed to be included in clause 173(1).
There may also be some confusion over the status of housing associations and the coverage of the disability equality duty. This applies only to public authorities like the regulator; it does not apply to housing associations, which the right hon. Gentleman knows are independent, non-public bodies. I lay that down as a marker for consideration next week.
Housing associations therefore have no duties under the section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Housing Corporation currently encourages them to voluntarily follow that duty and produce a disability equality scheme. Its regulatory code addresses disability and equal opportunity issues.
I hope that I have addressed the right hon. Gentleman’s points, reassured him as to our direction of travel—I think we are in the same car on this—and I hope he withdraws the motion.

George Young: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Choice-based disability housing register
‘(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 167(2E) insert—
“(2F) Subject to subsection (2), the scheme shall contain provision for the creation of a disability housing register consisting of—
(a) a record of existing or planned accessible residential properties in the local authority area, whether purpose built or adapted, with details of the access features relating to each property and location details and other residential properties which would otherwise meet the particular requirements of disabled persons;
(b) a record of disabled persons who require such properties;
(c) a service of enabling and supporting disabled persons to bid for properties so recorded and
(d) a mechanism for ensuring such persons are accorded priority status for such properties within the allocations process.
(2G) For the purposes of this section—
“accessible residential properties” means dwellings, flats and houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales which provide a reasonable means of access in and around the property and ease of use for disabled persons or which may easily be adapted to provide such access and ease of use;
“residential properties which would otherwise meet the particular requirements of disabled persons” means properties which would be suitable, either in terms of their size, particular features or location, for disabled persons who have disability-related requirements other than or in addition to access requirements.
(2H) This section is without prejudice to the right of disabled persons to bid for properties other than those mentioned in subsections 2F and 2G above.
(2I) In performing their duties under this section, each local housing authority shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the appropriate authority.’.—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, I hope that this debate need not be too protracted. The new clause would introduce choice-based disability housing registers. Disability organisations are very keen on that and they want local authorities to set up accessible housing registers as part of choice-based lettings. Accessible housing registers would gather consistent data on vacant accessible or adapted homes and ensure that the properties are let to disabled people who need those features and that they are given priority over others in the bids for them. This would save money by ensuring that more efficient use is made of existing accessible and adapted housing. Unless local authorities operate something like that, all the evidence is that disabled people in housing will wait longer than non-disabled people for a property that meets their needs. Disabled people can be placed in residential care or face longer stays in hospital while an accessible property is found. Many adapted houses are let to non-disabled people as a housing department strives to meet some of the targets that the Government invite them to meet in void turnaround times. Often that is because they cannot locate a suitable prospective tenant within the time limit.
Research shows that for lettings in the social housing sector, on average only one in six wheelchair-standard dwellings was let to a household containing a wheelchair user despite an overwhelming demand for wheelchair-standard property from wheelchair users. That is a frightening statistic and an economic and social waste. If adapted property is not used efficiently, it leads to adaptations being ripped out and thrown away, in contrast to the ballooning demand for disabled facilities grants, to which the Minister referred.
In a nutshell, operating one of those registers would enable a more efficient allocations process by more accurately matching people to a property that meets their needs. It would provide more accurate information on future and current housing demand, and that information would inform the local authority’s assessment of future housing need in their area. It would save money by enabling a disabled person to move out of a hospital or residential care more quickly. It would also enable the recycling of adaptations as the register would identify those who needed them. The late Disability Rights Commission calculated that if all local authorities in England had operated one of those registers in 2006, more than £70 million could have been saved, money that could have been reinvested in meeting housing need.
I understand that the Government do not know how many local authorities have these registers. The disability equality scheme includes a commitment to establish what the role is for AHRs within the context of choice-based letting. It seems that there is a mismatch between properties available and the needs of those looking for them. There should be more of these registers. It would help if the Government could shed some light on where they are heading in this important area.

Alistair Burt: I rise to support the general tenor of my right hon. Friend’s remarks. I am not aware that local authorities have quotas for the number of houses that should be available. I had an issue recently with one of my own local planning authorities on behalf of a constituent where it was difficult to ascertain whether there were sufficient properties in the area available for those with disabilities. The council quite properly believes it is providing for the reasonable needs of those in the area but it was difficult to work out quotas or anything else because no accurate figure exists.
This all fits with remarks I made earlier about the issues of an ageing society where more people are in need of that sort of property. Our general approach is to try to be transparent and permissive and the proposal would help by making information available for organisations and individuals. It would assist local authorities without necessarily demanding or requiring that they adhere to a fixed number, which might change at any stage. We could all do with such information.
If the Minister is not minded to amend the legislation perhaps he might indicate how, through some other form of guidance, the information might be made available to the public, because it would help developers, local authorities and those with responsibility for the provision of housing in the future. It would certainly help individuals or families who are looking for information about what is available in their area and would give a general sense of the sort of issues we face, and the number of properties that might be needed. It would be valuable information, some of which might surprise the general public. If they were aware of just how acute the need was, they might realise that provision was not nearly as great as they thought.

Andrew George: I hope the Minister will address the question of what legal restrictions under present regulation there are on local authorities to apply such a disability housing register—in other words, to favour someone with a disability for whom a property would be appropriate even though otherwise they have a lower housing need than someone else on the housing register. In implementing a decision to favour someone with a lesser housing need, and thus a lesser rating, what are the restrictions on local authorities at present?
I fully endorse everything that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said but it would be very helpful if the Minister could give clarification, which could be conveyed to many local authorities that do not much differentiate in their decisions on properties—often scarce properties—that are already adapted to meet the needs of a disabled person.

Iain Wright: I rise with trepidation to respond to a debate which includes a former housing Minister, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, and a former Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire—very good Ministers, given their political complexion.
I have enjoyed the debate and understand and appreciate fully the sentiments behind the amendment. I recognise that, as the right hon. Gentleman and others have eloquently said, it is of enormous importance that people with disabilities and access needs are housed appropriately.
We have mentioned the disabilities facilities grant a number of times today. Each year, that programme helps about 35,000 disabled and older people to live safely and independently in their homes by making adaptations and improvements such as wheelchair ramps, stairlifts and downstairs bathrooms. I have mentioned the increase in funding from £57 million in 1997 to £138 million in 2007-08, rising to £146 million next year.
I appreciate how important it is that disabled people looking for social housing have the right level of priority for housing that meets their needs, and I hope that addresses the point that the hon. Member for St. Ives touched on in his contribution. That is why the Government recently amended the legislation governing how housing authorities allocate social housing to make it clear that giving reasonable preference for an allocation—giving priority for local authority housing to people who have medical and welfare grounds for moving house—includes people who have to move because of a disability. The amendment in section 223 of the Housing Act 2004 came into force in April 2005 and was intended to meet concerns that the term “medical grounds” was being interpreted too narrowly by some local authorities and that people with disabilities were being disadvantaged as a result.
The Government want local authorities and social landlords to make the best use of housing stock, including accommodation that is accessible or has been adapted. I recognise that the so-called accessible housing registers can be useful in that regard. However, I frankly do not believe that forcing local authorities to compile registers is the right way forward. I believe that it would be burdensome and could be counterproductive; rather, it should be for local authorities—to return to the point about local discretion—to decide whether a register would meet their local needs and, if so, to set it up in a way that best suits those needs.
Furthermore, although I appreciate that information about the overall stock of accessible housing can be useful, I believe it is more important for disabled people to have information about suitable, accessible property that is actually available to them. The Government see the merits of disabled housing registers and have taken a number of steps to encourage local authorities to adopt that approach. The current code of guidance on allocations recommends that housing authorities maintain lists of properties that are suitable for disabled people and other special needs groups.
The draft choice-based lettings code of guidance, which we issued for consultation last year, builds on that approach and provides detailed advice on how to incorporate accessible housing within a choice-based lettings scheme and encourages local authorities to maintain lists and databases of accessible housing. It also advises on the type of information that should be contained in such databases.
My Department’s disability equality scheme, which was published last December, included a commitment to examine the role and effectiveness of disabled housing registers within the context of our choice-based lettings policy. My officials will commission that work in the next few weeks, with a view to issuing good practice by the end of the year. The Department’s disability equality scheme is also committed to the development of the national register of social housing, which sets a national standard for measuring accessibility and calls on social housing landlords to produce consistent accessibility information for each dwelling by April 2010.
Furthermore, anecdotal information suggests that local authorities are recognising the benefits of accessible housing registers and that take-up is increasing. We have just announced that we are making available an extra £168,000 to assist in implementing a London-wide accessible housing register as part of the pan-London choice and mobility scheme called Capital Moves.
The London accessible housing register was launched last September and will be implemented over the next 18 months. I pledge to the Committee and to the hon. Member for St. Ives that I will ensure that good practice emerging from that exercise is spread to other social landlords to encourage and assist them in implementing an accessible housing register.
Although I recognise that it can be useful to have information about the stock of accessible housing in a district, I have found that disabled people really want to know whether the house or flat that is available to rent meets their access needs. The key lies with social landlords adopting letting schemes that offer tenants more of a say in choosing where they live. Under a choice-based lettings approach, landlords can ensure that the advert for an accessible vacancy specifies the type and level of adaptation and who was allowed to bid for the property. Local authorities could thus ensure that accessible housing was prioritised for disabled people, who could then choose housing that met their individual and specified access needs. That is the best way to make sure, as far as possible, that disabled people are matched to suitable housing.
The new clause would require local authorities to put in place a service to support disabled people in bidding for properties on the register of accessible properties. We recognise that some people with disabilities may need additional assistance or support to take part in a choice-based letting scheme, which is why we introduced a provision in the Homelessness Act 2002 that required housing authorities to ensure that such assistance is available free of charge. The draft statutory CBL code of guidance, to which I referred a moment or two ago, provides detailed advice on how local authorities can support disabled people and enable them successfully to take part in CBL schemes. The good practice that we are commissioning will back that up with practical guidance, drawing on the experience of choice-based letting schemes, so, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, that aspect of the new clause adds nothing to what the Government are already doing.
Finally, the new clause envisages local authorities maintaining a register of disabled people. In the Homelessness Act 2002 the Government repealed the duty to maintain a register of housing applicants. It would seem to go against the grain of moving towards minimum regulation and minimum added burdens, to introduce an obligation on housing authorities to maintain a register of disabled applicants only.
I hope that I have set out the Government’s intentions in detail—we are probably on the same page with both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

George Young: That was a hopeful response. I detect that the Committee wishes to make progress. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about promoting good practice, so against the background of that reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Possession action for rent arrears involving housing benefit
‘Section 7 (orders for possession) of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) is amended as follows.
(1) In subsection (3), for “subsections (5A) and (6)” substitute “subsections (5A), (6) and (6A)”.
(2) In subsection (4), for “subsections (5A) and (6)” substitute “subsections (5A), (6) and (6A)”.
(3) After subsection (6), insert—
“(6A) If the court is satisfied—
(a) that Ground 8 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act is established; and
(b) that some rent is in arrears as a consequence of a delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit, it shall not make an order for possession unless it considers it reasonable to do so.
(4) At end insert—
“(8) In subsection (6A) above—
(a) “relevant housing benefit” means—
(i) any rent allowance or rent rebate to which the tenant was entitled in respect of the rent under the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/213); or
(ii) any payment on account of any such entitlement awarded under Regulation 93 of those Regulations;
(b) references to delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit do not include such delay or failure so far as referable to any wilful act or omission of the tenant.”.’.—[Sir George Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

George Young: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
After moving new clause 12 I shall take a vow of silence—for the rest of the day. The new clause is important as it would prevent tenants on assured tenancies from being evicted when the reason for the eviction was a failure to pay housing benefit. I am sure that all hon. Members have constituents who are given notice by their landlord because the local authority has failed to pay their housing benefit on time.
The new clause would amend ground 8 in schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988. Before someone jumps up to say that I want to amend an Act that I put on the statute book, in 1988 there was an important discontinuity in my ministerial career because of the poll tax—someone else put the Act on the statute book.
Private landlords and housing associations can use ground 8 to seek possession of accommodation let on an assured tenancy where the tenant is behind with the rent by two months or more. Unlike other grounds for possession, this one is mandatory. The court has no discretion whatever to deny the order for possession if the rent is in arrears. My new clause would give the court some discretion in cases where housing benefit issues are outstanding. The discretion does not extend to other reasons, only where housing benefit is the reason for the arrears.
About 2.5 million households are in receipt of housing benefit to help them with the rent. While many local authorities administer housing benefit efficiently, sadly there are elements of poor administration in many local authorities. That, in turn, leads to debt and rent arrears for tenants. Research by Shelter across three county courts found that arrears were linked to problems with housing benefit in 70 per cent. of possession cases.
As I said a moment ago, ground 8 is mandatory. It requires the court to grant outright possession when the tenant has two months rent arrears both at the time of the notice of possession and at the time of the court hearing. If those conditions are satisfied, the court has no discretion to refuse an order, whatever the reasons for the arrears, or even to adjourn the claim. The ground is open to private landlords and housing associations who use assured shorthold tenancies, but it is not available to local authorities.
A survey was carried out into how 116 of the largest housing associations were using ground 8. In 2000, the National Housing Federation found that 16 per cent. of possession orders were granted on the basis of ground 8. Some associations have policies stating that they will not use ground 8, and many have adopted positive alternative strategies to deal with rent arrears in order to manage them rather than evict. However, in Shelter’s experience, some associations are using ground 8 in cases in which housing benefit claims are outstanding in order to show improvements in the collection of rent arrears. They are not taking appropriate steps to liaise with the housing benefit departments or to help their tenants to resolve the housing benefit or the debt problem.

Nick Raynsford: I rise simply to support the right hon. Gentleman. He will not be alone in experiencing heavy criticism of this provision. It comes from all sides—from representatives of lawyers who discover that it is impossible to get the courts to exercise discretion when they ought to; and by landlords, who may use the provision in order to try to speed up the local authority but then discover that they have unleashed a process that is irreversible because the court does not have any discretion. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very strong point. I intervene simply to say that he has a great deal of sympathy from my side of the Committee.

George Young: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; I value his endorsement of my new clause.
A rent arrears protocol came into effect in 2006. It is part of the civil procedure rules, and it sets out measures that social landlords should take before starting possession proceedings on the basis of rent arrears. Theoretically, the protocol applies to ground 8 claims, but it will have no practical effect because the court does not have the power to dismiss or adjourn claims. The Scottish Executive have already introduced measures to prevent eviction of tenants for rent arrears caused by housing benefit problems. Section 12 of the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 amends ground 8, as I propose in the new clause.
It is not a theoretical problem. I refer briefly to the case of North British Housing Association Ltd v. Matthews and others in 2004. The housing association brought proceedings under ground 8 despite being aware that the tenant had an outstanding housing benefit claim. The county court judge decided that he had no choice but to grant an outright possession order. Miss Matthews subsequently received a backdated payment of housing benefit that cleared her arrears completely and put her rent account into credit. None the less, the possession order still stood.
The Court of Appeal held that when ground 8 was involved, the county court had no power even to adjourn the hearing to await a housing benefit payment unless there were exceptional circumstances. Understandably, the Court of Appeal was troubled by the situation. Lord Justice Dyson said:
“We acknowledge that this conclusion will lead to tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit having no defence to a claim for possession in circumstances where they are not at fault. The statutory scheme is, therefore, potentially draconian in its application.”
So far, all my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. However, I have hopes that this, the last new clause that I shall move—

Margaret Moran: I, too, rise to support the right hon. Gentleman. It is a long-standing aberration. The fact is that some social landlords have deliberately used the tenant in a ploy to force the local authority to improve its housing benefit administration through ground 8. It is an absolute travesty of the intention behind all the work that we have been discussing.
Is it not the case that even when a local authority acknowledges that it has erred in its administration and tries to make a hardship payment—something that it can do under the housing benefit remit, although it cannot to do so to prevent possession—it will in effect cause them further expense, as they will have to pick up the homelessness costs?

George Young: The hon. Lady is right. The court cannot take into account what the local authority might be doing to remedy the position. If my oratory failed to move the Minister, I am sure that he will have been touched by that intervention—as well as by the powerful advocacy from the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.

Iain Wright: How can I possibly refuse the last amendment from the right hon. Gentleman? I will do my best to do so. I have a great deal of sympathy for his contribution. I think he made his case extremely well. I do appreciate the intention behind the amendment is to protect tenants from being evicted where, frankly, failure to pay the rent that is due is not of their own making.
However, I am reluctantly forced to say to him that the proposed amendment is not a necessary change. Landlords have a reasonable expectation of receiving rent for their property in good time. It would not be fair to expect landlords who let to tenants on housing benefit to be treated differently from those who do not. Where tenants rely on housing benefit to pay their rent, local authorities should process claims efficiently and in good time and landlords should not be penalised by their failure to do so.
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman was saying, but I am concerned that the unintended consequence of this amendment could be that a greater number of landlords would be disinclined to let to tenants on housing benefit. The Government are doing their best to address the perception of some landlords that housing benefit claimants somehow pose a higher risk than other tenants because of difficulties they have experienced with housing benefit administration.
The Department for Work and Pensions has put in place a number of measures to improve housing benefit administration, including the introduction of clear national performance standards, regular monitoring and inspections, measures to intervene in poor-performing authorities, and a £200 million standards fund to help local authorities invest in training and new IT facilities. As a result of this, standards of administration have started to improve, both on average and for the poorest performing local authorities.
The Government will continue to place a high priority on improving the administration of housing benefit. The introduction of the Local Housing Allowance last April is also likely to shorten the time tenants have to wait for assistance with their rent. Since the LHA is a flat-rate payment, based on the size of the household and the area it is in, there will no longer be a need for individual rent determinations, which contribute to a delay in processing claims. In addition, the LHA figures for each area will be published in advance, which means that tenants will be able to make an informed choice about the level of rent they can afford.

Andrew Love: I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the LHA and some of the changes that have been made to speed up the housing benefit delivery from local authorities. Does he accept, however, the concern that exists on both sides of the Committee today that if the only reason we can give for rejecting this amendment is that we are improving the delivery of housing benefit, the experience of all Members of what is actually happening in housing benefit administration would not allow us to accept that that is likely to do enough to protect affected tenants?

Iain Wright: I understand what my hon. Friend has said. In reply, I would say that if the roll-out of the LHA is successful, this amendment should not be required. If it were to be accepted, the amendment could still deter landlords from letting to tenants who receive the LHA. The concerted effort by the DWP in trying to improve matters will have an impact. However, I have taken on board the sentiments of the Committee and I can take them away and have a look; but as I said, that push toward improving standards and performance is a key point.

Nick Raynsford: Can I leave this final thought with him? On Thursday, we will be debating the social housing regulator. The Bill states that the second objective of the regulator is
“to ensure that actual or potential tenants of social housing have an appropriate degree of —
(a) choice, and
(b) protection.”
Would it not be unfortunate if our new regulator, when established, decided that as a result of existing landlord and tenant powers, tenants do not have an appropriate degree of protection because the mandatory grounds for possession in such cases means that, through no fault of their own, they can be evicted due to the failure of a body to administer housing benefit efficiently? That cannot be a satisfactory position. It would be most embarrassing for the Government if the regulator were to reach that conclusion.
I urge my hon. Friend to give further thought to this matter in the ensuing period because however much the administration of housing benefit improves, there is always the risk of error and delay in such a complex scheme. It is clearly unwise to leave individuals so vulnerable when no discretion is available to the court.

Iain Wright: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Notwithstanding the points that I was trying to make about the Department for Work and Pensions and improving performance, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing, has recently commissioned a major review of the private rented sector. That will take place in the next couple of months. The review will look at the experiences of landlords and tenants. I will instruct the review to look at this matter closely and keep the Committee informed. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will not press the motion.

George Young: Well, the fact is that in Scotland, it has already been decided that the courts will have this discretion. As far as I am aware, it has not had a hugely adverse impact on housing benefit. It has not led to tenants falling into arrears or to landlords being reluctant to let to people on housing benefit. We are talking about a measure that a judge has described as draconian. I would like the Minister to say that in the light of the debate on the new clause, he will go away and see whether there are ways of letting the courts have the discretion that all members of the Committee would like them to have. He might have said that already, but I would like to hear him say it again.
The new clause says:
“If the court is satisfied ... that some rent is in arrears as a consequence of a delay or failure in the payment of relevant housing benefit, it shall not make an order for possession unless it considers it reasonable to do so.”
That is the thrust of the new clause and I cannot for the life of me see what is objectionable about it. If the Minister says that between now and the Report stage, he will have another look at this issue so that if there is another debate about it on Report he might have something more constructive to say, I will not press the motion. A little bit of body language from the Minister would assist. We now have that, so on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Tolerated trespassers
‘(1) For section 82(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (secure tenancies), substitute the following—
“(2) Where the court makes a possession order for possession of the dwelling-house, the tenancy ends on the date on which the order for possession is executed (unless the tenant gives up possession before that date).”.
(2) After section 5(1) of the Housing Act 1988 (assured tenancies), insert the following—
“(1A) Where the court makes a possession order for possession of the dwelling-house, the tenancy ends on the date on which the order for possession is executed (unless the tenant gives up possession before that date).”.
(3) In section 7(7) of the Housing Act 1988 (assured tenancies), for the words “on the day on which the order takes effect”, substitute “on the date on which the order for possession is executed (unless the tenant gives up possession in before that date”.
(4) In section 127(3) of the Housing Act 1996 (introductory tenancies), for the words “on the date on which the tenant is to give up possession in pursuance of the order”, substitute “on the date on which the order for possession is executed (unless the tenant gives up possession before that date)”.
(5) In section 143D of the Housing Act 1996 (demoted tenancies), for the words “on the date on which the tenant is to give up possession in pursuance of the order”, substitute “on the date on which the order for possession is executed (unless the tenant gives up possession before that date)”.
(6) Where a possession order was made prior to the commencement of this Act in respect of relevant tenancy with effect from the date of commencement, such order is to be treated as if the amendments in this section had been enacted and in full effect at the date of the order, provided that at commencement the tenant continues to occupy the same premises as his only or principal home.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt, in subsection (6) “tenant” includes a former tenant under a relevant tenancy and where the tenant’s tenancy is revived in consequence of this section, such revival shall have effect from the date of commencement of this Act.
(8) In this section a “relevant tenancy” is one of the tenancies referred to in subsections (1) to (5) above.
(9) For section 85(4) of the Housing Act 1985 and section 9(4) of the Housing Act 1988 substitute the following—
“Following a stay, suspension or postponement under subsection (2) above, upon payment of all sums due under the order, the order shall be discharged; and the court may at any other time, if it thinks fit, discharge or rescind the order for possession.”’.—[Andrew George.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I tabled the new clause, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. We have not left the province of legalese. The new clause is in an area of highly complex law and technicality—for me, if not for others. A tenant can become a trespasser in their own home, but until a court order is executed—in other words, they are evicted—they are know as tolerated trespassers.
People can become tolerated trespassers in two situations. First, a court could make a suspended possession order against a secure or assured tenant stating that the landlord should recover possession of the property on a certain day, but that enforcement of the order should be suspended on terms. Those could include the payment of the current rent plus weekly instalments of the arrears. Secondly, when a court makes an outright possession order, the landlord could allow the former tenant to stay on and not enforce the order on the basis that payments are kept up.
Once a person becomes a tolerated trespasser, they enter into a state of limbo, in which they cease to have any of the contractual or statutory rights that they formerly enjoyed as a secure tenant. The new clause would abolish that state of limbo and the entire concept of the tolerated trespasser by ensuring that the tenancy does not end on the date when the possession order takes effect, but only on actual eviction from the premises, in other words, the execution of the possession order.
As a tolerated trespasser, the loss of the tenancy agreement, with all of its rights and obligations, can have far-reaching implications for a tenant. Tolerated trespassers cannot require their landlord to carry out repairs; they cannot exercise any of the charter rights in the Housing Act 1985, such as the right to a mutual exchange or the right to take in lodgers or the right to consultation on matters of housing management and of course, the right to buy.
Unfortunately for members of the tolerated trespasser’s family, rights of succession on death are also lost. The tolerated trespasser can revive their former tenancy by applying for a further court order varying or discharging the original possession order, but where a warrant of possession has been issued, the tenancy will not be revived by an order suspending the warrant on terms. As I have said, the situation is highly complex and technical—hence I am sticking to my notes assiduously—and most occupiers in this situation do not realise that they have lost their tenancies or, if they do, do not understand how to revive them.
The new clause adopts a form of words recommended by the Law Commission in its draft rented homes Bill. The Bill would abolish the concept of the tolerated trespasser by ensuring that the tenancy did not end on the date when the possession order takes effect, but only on the date of the actual eviction from the premises. The new clause would also act to revive the tenancies of all those tolerated trespassers who are still in their homes, as if those tenancies had not ended. Where a tolerated trespasser pays off all the arrears and costs due under the order, the new clause provides that the tenancy will revive automatically, when the rent account goes into credit. I hope that the state of limbo that is created by law at present can be dealt with in that manner, and I hope that the Minister has taken on board the considerations and proposals within the new clause. I look forward to his response.

Iain Wright: I had my fingers burned during consideration of the last new clause, so I will tread a little more carefully this time. I fully appreciate the motivation behind the new clause, which as the hon. Gentleman has eloquently pointed out, seeks to deal with the problems caused by tolerated trespassers. The Government’s concern is to protect the interests of both landlords and tenants and to ensure that a good balance is maintained between them. I recognise that the creation by the courts of tolerated trespasser status causes serious problems for tenants and landlords alike. In the first place, neither landlord nor tenant can rely on the provisions in the relevant Housing Acts or on the terms of their tenancy agreement. For the tenant, probably the most serious consequence is that no succession will be possible on death. For the landlord, problems will include uncertainty about entitlement to rent, particularly annual increases in rent, and about whether tolerated trespassers should be allowed to vote in such things as stock transfers and tenant management ballots.
Of course, remedies already exist to restore tenancy status individually to existing tolerated trespassers. A tenant can ask the court to exercise its discretion to amend the original possession order by resetting the date for possession in the future. However, that can only occur on a case-by-case basis, which, as the Committee will be aware, is both costly and time-consuming. Furthermore, tenants are usually unaware of the remedy, as they are of the fact that they have become tolerated trespassers.
I do not underestimate the size of the problem. Government statistics suggest that there could be about 250,000 to 300,000 people in social housing who are now classed as tolerated trespassers. It is not an insignificant matter, and it needs to be tackled. Although we have made it clear, I wish to put on the record again that we take the matter seriously. That is why we issued a consultation paper in August canvassing views on how to deal with the tolerated trespasser problem now and in the future.
Respondents to that consultation exercise were overwhelmingly in support of remedying the situation for the future. The majority of respondents also favoured rescuing all existing tolerated trespassers, rather than just those who have complied with the terms of a possession order, although that was generally on the proviso that landlords should be protected from any liability for damages. I believe that that proviso is important, and I shall return to it.
In light of that clear response, the Government are committed to resolving the tolerated trespasser problem. We must resolve the contradictions in the current law, so that it is consistent with the wide discretionary powers that Parliament gave to the courts to protect tenants. While I am sympathetic to the aims of the new clause, I am not convinced that it fully delivers what is needed and what it intends to deliver. In particular, it fails to recognise the complexity of the situation of existing tolerated trespassers.
The new clause would effectively revive or restore former tenancy status to all existing tolerated trespassers who remain in a property. That is to say that it would be as though existing occupants had never become tolerated trespassers. I believe that that could be problematic, particularly for landlords who are likely to have based decisions regarding individual occupants on their status as tolerated trespassers. In reference to the point that I made a moment ago, that is likely to include decisions associated with stock transfer ballots and repairs, as the statutory right to repair does not apply to tolerated trespassers.
If the legislation were to be changed with retrospective effect, so that tolerated trespassers are restored to tenancy status, I believe that we must look closely at the implications for landlords, including the need to ensure protection from any legal consequences. The new clause, as currently drafted, does not do that, and for that reason alone, I cannot support it. However, I commit now to considering the introduction of an amendment at a later stage of the proceedings to resolve the matter of tolerated trespassers. On that basis, I hope that I have again secured the support of the Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives does not press the new clause.

Andrew George: I am glad that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire softened the Minister up before I got to my feet, because it seems to have worked. I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He acknowledges that many tenants will not be aware of the complexity or cost of remedying their situation, where they have the ability to do so.
The Minister mentioned the fact that up to 300,000 families were affected by that state of limbo. The situation is clearly not tolerable and must be addressed. He suggested that, after having canvassed views, the Government are resolved to address it. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. There may well be some defections—[Hon. Members: “Defects.”] Yes, defects, thank you. It is rather late in the day for me. We do not have defections in our party.

Iain Wright: Just stabs in the back.

Andrew George: Yes, I have the wounds in the back to prove it.
There may well be some defects in the drafting of the new clause, and I accept that the Minister will go away and address them. I look forward to his bringing forward an amendment, I assume, on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Exempt areas
‘The Secretary of State may by order designate rural areas as exempt from the right to buy.’.—[Andrew George.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew George: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the proposal, on the basis of his response to the last amendment. We are back to the territory of political tribalism, which the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield enjoyed so much in an earlier debate on the right to buy, and I am sure many more colourful adjectives and accusations will fly as the debate proceeds. The purpose of the new clause was in part addressed during that debate, as it relates to the difficulties in rural areas where the sell-back clause in respect of the right to buy does not apply.
Rural homelessness and housing need are widely recognised as key factors that undermine the sustainability of rural communities. The loss of council properties through the right to buy has a direct impact on the number of re-lettings becoming available. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State, by regulation, to exempt local authority housing in designated areas with populations of 3,000 or below. The existing rural exemptions under the right to acquire—the scheme available to housing association tenants—should also apply to council tenants under the right to buy.
As background to the proposal, the Minister should be aware that in 2003 the rural group of Labour MPs said:
“The right to buy from councils or registered social landlords should not be available to tenants in settlements of below 3,000.”
They conceded that that may cause difficulties for those who already have that right, but they argued that as people realised the effect of the right to buy on their own families, they would understand why it might be withdrawn.
In its 2004 report on the draft Housing Bill, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Committee recommended that the Government should seriously consider extending the Bill with regard to exclusions in rural areas. The home ownership taskforce recommended that restrictions on the right to buy and right to acquire in rural areas be aligned.
The Minister must bear in mind that the way in which housing is structured is differentiated between rural areas and urban areas: 86 per cent. of rural housing is owner-occupied or privately rented compared with 77 per cent. in urban areas. Social rented housing accounts for 13.4 per cent. of the total housing in rural areas, compared with 22.4 per cent. in urban areas. In my part of the world, social housing represents less than 10 per cent., which is about the same proportion as second homes in a constituency such as mine. Average house prices rose faster in rural areas between 2000 and 2006 than in urban areas, which has significant implications for broader housing availability in the countryside.
Housing affordability, based on the relationship between average wages and average house prices, is far worse in many rural areas. The scarce council housing and housing association housing in rural areas is often occupied for long periods by the same families, and it becomes available only in very limited circumstances. The cost of developing new social housing makes it difficult to develop a new supply of affordable housing in rural areas.
The homes in the private rented sector are few and far between, and where they exist, they are extremely expensive. In its report, “Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future”, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that
“The availability of housing, especially social and other affordable housing, is a critical issue in many rural areas...Rural housing is often in high demand from in-comers, long distance commuters, people moving in to retire, and owners of second homes and holiday homes. This can squeeze out local people on lower incomes.”
According to the Countryside Agency,
“people on modest incomes, including young and pensioner households and local first-time buyers, are being priced out of many rural districts. This has implications for the maintenance of viable, inclusive rural communities, with some areas becoming increasingly exclusive, comprising only wealthy households. The balance of communities is disrupted, families are separated, increased pressure is placed on many rural services, and the local economy may be forced into decline.”
I hope that the Minister will take into account the difficult circumstances in which people in many rural areas find themselves. The right to buy has a disproportionate impact on many rural areas. That was recognised by the Conservative Government, who recognised that there were some communities—26 designated rural areas, I think—where there are restrictions on the resale of properties available under the right-to-buy scheme.
There are many parts of the country, including my constituency, where former council houses are now second homes. That highly prized, expensive accommodation has simply not been replaced in areas where housing waiting lists are long and the prospect of local people ever being able to get a house of their own is remote. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and accept the new clause in the form in which it is drafted. If not, I hope that he will recognise that the issue needs to be addressed and that it should be addressed in the Bill.

Iain Wright: We have discussed the right to buy at some length already this afternoon. That important issue affects a lot of people, but I do not want to detain the Committee for too long in that regard. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about housing in rural areas. To get quickly to the crux of my argument, however, it seems that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire want to tackle that in a rather blunt way by depriving tenants who live in rural areas of the right to buy. In practice, the new clause would deny rural tenants the chance to become home owners unless they are wealthy, which seems rather harsh. Those people will have a strong connection with the locality and, without the right-to-buy facility, would have to move away to become home owners, which is not appropriate.
The Government are well aware that there are significant housing issues in rural areas. Our aim is to ensure that more of the existing housing in rural areas is available to local people. We have had a great debate today on new clauses 24 and 25, in which hopefully we have teased out that there will be help to ensure that shared ownership properties are retained for future purchases in areas were replacement would be difficult. However—this is the crucial point—it is important to note that people will not be prevented from buying homes in rural areas, but just prevented from buying them outright, which will allow us to retain affordable housing in perpetuity.
The right-to-buy scheme has always sought to balance the benefits of helping social tenants into home ownership with the need for affordable rural housing. As the hon. Member for St. Ives has mentioned, tenants who buy their homes in areas designated as rural by the Secretary of State, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty may not resell them to whomever they wish.
The Government’s view is that the new clause as currently drafted would be too inflexible and would take away a long-standing right, thereby taking away the chance for rural tenants to become home owners in the areas where they might have lived for many years. On that basis, I cannot accept the new clause and hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Andrew George: Of course, I fully understand that the new clause is effectively a blunt instrument that would remove in total the right to buy from many tenants. However, I hope that the Minister recognises the difficulties in many rural areas, because I did not entirely detect that in his response.
For rural families, the association with a particular parish or village is extremely strong. Moving many miles away to find accommodation can uproot a family, who may have had local associations for many years, if not for many generations. I hope that the Minister will recognise the problems of small rural communities, and even small towns, where the stock of affordable accommodation is extremely small. A magic circle is needed so that every property that is sold is replaced. Because affordable properties are so highly valued by the community as a whole, and because they are often the only route for local families on local incomes to ever get any kind of home of their own, a mechanism is required to protect that stock. If it is not protected by this admittedly blunt measure, we need to find a more sophisticated measure that enables those communities to replace the stock that is lost.
Just as on the previous new clause, I hope that the Minister will take away the matter, consider it and introduce his own amendment on Report. I hope that he will at least acknowledge that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. In the present circumstances, it is not being addressed in many rural areas, which is something that the Government will have to deal with. On the basis that we have had the opportunity to debate that substantial issue and that we will have an opportunity to return to it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Liz Blackman.]

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 24 January at Nine o’clock.